gpt 


*VVV 


^^  xu  mmhmi  ^„,, .  ^'^'  ^ 


"% 


"» 


PEINOETON,  N.  J. 


% 


Division 


Sectionn.. 


:£>  ^  I  8  B 

.Q-..fo5 


Skelf 


Number 


GIVEN    TO 
'"■'■■'^''" Mr  THE  AUTlioM, 


M/r^^^   v2^^i^^>^^^'.^....^^ 


^  "^7.=^  -^^^^^-^^ 


NOTES 


THE  LATE  REVISION 


The  New  Testament  Version. 


BY    THE 

REV.   DANIEL  R.    GOODWIN. 


New  York  : 
THOMAS    WHITTAKER. 

18S3. 


Copyright,  1883 
Bv   DANIEL    R.    GOODWIN. 


ADVERTISEMENT 


A  portion  of  these  Notes,  with  the  Introduction,  have  ap- 
peared in  the  '•'■American  Church  Review^''  for  which  they 
tvere  originally  prepared ;  and  this  must  be  at  once  the  expla- 
nation a7id  the  excuse  for  the  assumption  of  certain  modes  of 
expression  belonging  to  the  style  of  the  reviewer. 


NOTES  ON  THE  LATE  REVISION  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT  VERSION. 


INTRODUCTION. 


These  notes  have  a  subordinate  and  restricted  purpose. 
They  are  not  intended  as  a  thorough  review,  or  as  the  com- 
plete basis  of  a  final  judgment.  They  look  only  at  a  part 
of  one  side  of  the  case. 

1.  They  are  not  intended  at  all  to  point  out  the  merits 
of  the  Revision,  but  only  some  of  its  faults.  It  is  freely 
and  fully  admitted  that  the  Revisers  have  made  important 
corrections  and  many  improvements.  Indeed  it  were  pass- 
ing strange  if  so  many  biblical  critics,  selected  from  the 
ripest  scholarship  of  Great  Britain  and  America,  after  de- 
voting so  many  years  to  their  task,  had  failed  to  make  such 
emendations.  No  scholar  of  even  the  most  moderate 
pretension  could  have  failed  to  make  many  such  in  far 
less  time.  Though  this  would  seem,  therefore,  no  great 
ground  of  boasting,  we  cheerfully  accord  the  Revisers  all 
the  credit  they  can  claim  on  this  score.  But  the  counter- 
balancing faults,  if  such  there  be,  must  be  considered  be- 
fore making  up  a  final  judgment.  We  propose  to  furnish 
from  this  quarter  some  of  the  material  for  such  a  judg- 
ment. 

2.  We  set  aside  all  reference  to  changes  in  the  Greek 
text,  and  the  consequent  changes  in  the  version.  In  this 
department  lie  the  most  interesting  and  important  ques- 
tions  of  criticism.  In  most  of  these  alterations,  and  in 
some  of  the  most  important,  we  are  free  to  say  that,  in  our 
humble  judgment,  the  Revisers  are  right.  But  we  pass 
this  question  by  entirely. 


8  NOTES  ON    THE   LATE  REVISION. 

3.  In  our  strictures  upon  the  other  changes  introduced 
into  the  version  by  the  Revisers  we  may  sometimes  call  in 
question  the  accuracy  or  the  propriety  of  their  translation 
in  itself  considered  ;  but  more  frequently  we  shall  call  in 
question  the  necessity  or  importance  of  the  changes,  under 
the  rule  by  which  they  professed  to  be  guided — viz.,  "  to 
introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  into  the  text  of  the 
Authorized  Version  consistently  with  faithfulness."  Some 
have  seemed  to  think  it  a  sufficient  justification  of  any 
change,  that  it  is,  in  any  degree,  an  improvement  ;  and  to 
assume  that,  in  such  a  case,  faithfulness  required  it.  But 
the  rule  just  cited  is,  and  was  evidently  intended  to  be,  a 
special  restriction  ;  it  is  a  restriction,  moreover,  which  was 
doubtless  in  consonance  with  the  purpose  of  Convocation, 
and  which  commends  itself  to  the  general  approval  of  the 
Christian  communit3\  The  Revisers  professed  to  act  un- 
der it.  But  could  they  have  understood,  can  any  intelli- 
gent man  understand,  that  rule  to  mean  simply  that  they 
were  to  introduce  no  alterations  which,  in  their  judgment, 
would  not  be,  in  some  degree,  improvements  ?  To  sup- 
pose such  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  rule  were  to  stultify  the 
Committee  who  made  it  and  who  were  to  act  under  it  :  for 
it  would  imply  that  the  Committee  thought  it  necessary 
solemnly  to  guard  themselves  against  making  alterations 
which  they  should  judge  to  be  no  improvements  at  all  ; 
and  a  Committee  for  whom  such  a  solemn  resolution  should 
have  been  necessary  were  certainly  a  Committee  beneath 
the  task  assigned  to  them,  not  to  say  beneath  contempt. 
In  considering,  therefore,  any  alteration  in  the  version  we 
shall  regard  it  as  pertinent  to  ask,  not  only.  Is  this  a  cor- 
rect translation  ?  or.  Is  it,  in  some  critical  sense  or  degree, 
an  improvement  upon  the  Authorized  Version  ?  but,  Is  it 
required hy  faithfulness!  And  we  shall  regard  this  last  ques- 
tion as  having  a  different  meaning  and  bearing  from  the 
others. 

4.  We  shall  avoid  setting  our  own  mere  opinion  or  judg- 
ment against  that  of  so  many  learned  men,  the  ripest 
scholars  of  the  age  ;  and  rarely  shall  we  thus  set  our  own 
reasonings  merely;  but,  in  most  of  our  animadversions,  we 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

shall  undertake  to  show  that  the  Revisers  are  inconsistent 
with  themselves  ;  and  thus  we  shall  appeal  to  them  as  their 
own  judges.  When  any  of  these  inconsistencies  are  palpa- 
bly shown,  it  may  be  replied  that  they  are  mere  oversights. 
They  may  be  mere  oversights  ;  but,  even  so,  none  would 
be  more  earnest  or  glad  to  have  them  corrected  than  the 
learned  Revisers  themselves.  And,  after  all,  the  question 
is  not  how  far  the  Revisers  may  be  excused  for  faults  and 
inconsistencies,  if  they  have  committed  any,  but  whether, 
with  such  faults  and  inconsistencies,  their  work  is  such  as 
it  ought  to  be  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended — 
to  become  a  final  substitute  for  the  Authorized  Version. 

5.  Whenever,  and  in  so  far  as,  any  alterations  involve  in 
any  degree  theological,  or  dialectic,  or  doctrinal  consider- 
ations, if  we  differ  from  the  Revisers,  we  shall  not  regard 
it  as  temerariously  pitting  our  solitary  and  insignificant 
authority  against  that  of  the  ripest  scholars  and  greatest 
theologians  of  the  age,  but  we  shall  take  to  our  side  the 
forty-seven  translators  of  the  Authorized  Version.  Those 
men,  if  they  had  not  had  the  opportunity  of  studying  the 
modern  grammars  and  lexicons  of  the  Greek,  if  they  had 
not  seen  the  recently  discovered  manuscripts  and  the  latest 
improved  text,  were  yet,  in  sound  theological  learning  and 
in  dialectic  training,  the  undoubted  peers  of  the  best  lin- 
guists and  critics  "  of  to-day." 

6.  We  shall  proceed  upon  the  assumption  that  a  good 
translation  from  Greek  into  English  must  not  only  express 
the  exact  sense  of  the  Greek,  but  must  also  express  it  in 
English,  in  good  English,  pure,  idiomatic  English  ;  not 
only  in  English  words,  but  in  English  style  and  construc- 
tion. If  it  cannot  be  expressed  in  good  English,  it  cannot 
be  translated,  but  must,  so  far,  be  left  to  scholars  and  com- 
mentators to  paraphrase  and  explain.  The  nearest  ap- 
proximation to  the  exact  sense  of  the  Greek  which  can  be 
made  in  good  idiomatic  English,  without  offending  the 
English  taste  or  ear,  is  the  best  English  translation  that 
can  be  made.  To  invent  a  sort  of  Greek-English /^?/6'/i',  to 
resort  to  a  tyro's  construing,  with  a  view  of  giving  the 
English  reader  a  kind  of  fac-simile  of   the  Greek,  is  not  to 


lO  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

translate  into  English  at  all.  Languages  differ  in  the  col- 
location of  words  as  well  as  in  the  words  themselves  ;  and 
often  the  proper  order  is  to  be  determined  by  an  appeal  to 
the  ear  or  to  usage,  not  to  logic,  and  still  less  from  the 
English  to  the  Greek.  So,  too,  for  the  repetition  or  varia- 
tion of  words.  A  repetition,  which  may  be  a  positive 
beauty  in  one  language,  may,  in  a  given  connection,  be 
simply  barbarous  or  positively  offensive  in  another.  So, 
oftentimes,  with  the  use  of  more  general  or  more  specific 
terms.  In  English  a  traveller  goes  to  see  the  world,  we  do 
not  say  he  goes  to  behold  it  ;  though  the  ancient  Greek 
might  use  the  more  specific  word  S'scopeco,  to  behold  or 
view.  In  English  a  man  sees  a  wolf  coming,  we  do  not  say 
he  beholds  him  ;  and  we  should  say,  "  what  you  see  me 
have,"  not  "  what  you  behold  me  having."  Also,  in  Eng- 
lish there  are  certain  established  phrases  or  forms  of  expres- 
sion which  have  so  long  been  used  as  the  correspondents  to 
certain  Greek  phrases,  that  to  change  them  in  order  to 
secure  a  so-called  literal  or  exact  translation  would  be 
sheer  pedantry — a  new  coining  of  an  artificial  English  ;  as, 
e.g.,  if  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  were  Grecized  into  "  the 
kingdom  of  the  heavens,"  or  "  the  children  of  Israel  "  into 
"  the  sons  of  Israel." 

7.  It  is  not  necessary  to  faithfulness  of  translation  that  a 
given  word  in  one  language  should  always — while  retain- 
ing the  same  intrinsic  meaning — be  rendered  by  the  same 
word  in  another  language.  The  rendering  may  be  varied 
in  view,  not  only  of  the  intrinsic  meaning,  but  of  the  gen- 
eral air  and  associations  of  the  different  passages,  or  of  the 
habits  of  expression  in  the  different  languages,  or  of  their 
comparative  copiousness  of  diction.  Suppose,  e.g.,  that 
Shakespeare  were  to  be  translated  into  Persian  verse — it 
would  not  give  a  fair  idea  of  him  to  Persian  readers,  if, 
where  the  Persian  poetic  diction  should  have  a  hundred 
terms  for  one  English  epithet,  the  same  Persian  term 
should  be  used  throughout  for  this  same  English  word  ; 
even  though  this  English  word  had  the  same  intrinsic 
meaning  in  all  the  cases.  The  translators  of  1611  recog- 
nized  this  principle,  and   they  purposely  and   professedly 


IN  TR  OD  UC  TION.  1 1 

varied  their  renderings  accordingly.  In  some  cases  they 
may  have  pushed  the  application  of  the  principle  farther 
than  was  necessary  or  even  proper.  In  strictly  parallel 
passages  there  would  seem  to  have  been  no  good  reason  for 
such  variations.  And  yet  even  in  these  extreme  cases,  if, 
in  every  passage,  the  sense  of  the  Greek  was  accurately 
conveyed  in  the  English,  and  if  our  ears  and  our  biblical 
literature  had  become  habituated  and  conformed  to  the 
variation,  there  would  seem  to  have  been  no  sufficient  rea- 
son for  making  a  change  in  what  was  already  received. 
Certainly  faithfulness  to  God's  Word  did  not  require  the 
change,  for  confessedly  the  true  meaning  of  that  Word 
was  already,  in  each  case,  accurately  rendered.  But,  it  is 
said,  if  the  same  sense  is  found  expressed  in  English  in  two 
forms,  the  reader  will  naturally  infer  that  the  form  of  ex- 
pression in  the  original  also  is  different,  and  if  it  is  not,  he 
will  be  deceived  ;  we  answer,  the  common  English  reader 
ought  to  be,  and  is,  satisfied  if  he  has  the  true  sense  of  the 
original  accurately  expressed  in  good  English.  Not  to  one 
in  ten  thousand  of  such  readers  does  it  ever  occur  to  make 
such  an  inference  at  all.  And  as  for  critical  students,  they 
have  no  right  to  make  any  such  inference  in  regard  to  the 
Authorized  Version  ;  because  the  translators  have  given  ex- 
press notice  that  they  did  not  hold  themselves  bound  by 
any  such  rule  of  iron  uniformity  or  literal  correspondence. 
Translations  are  not  made  for  the  special  accommodation 
of  comparative  critics. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  when  the  Revisers  have 
adopted  and  expressly  announced  this  principle  of  uniform 
correspondence,  they  are  bound  to  adhere  to  it,  otherwise 
they  may  deceive  all  their  readers.  Consistency  would  re- 
quire them  to  conform  to  it  in  connection  with  identical 
constructions  as  well  as  of  identical  words.  Yet  they  freely 
render  :  "  when  he  had  taken  it,  he  went,"  and  "  he,  when 
he  had  taken  it,  went  ;"  or  "  he  took  it  and  went,"  "  hav- 
ing taken  it,  he  went,"  "  taking  it,  he  went" — all  with 
complete  indiscriminateness.  Indeed  they  expressly  tell 
us  that  they  propose  to  introduce  the  participial  construc- 
tion  into  the  English — they  do   not  say  always,  but  more 


12  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE   REVISION. 

frequently ;  thus  acknowledging  that  they  retain  and  use 
variety.  But,  passing  by  this,  whenever  they  have  varied 
the  rendering  of  a  given  word  while  used  in  the  same 
sense,  they  are  chargeable  with  a  serious  fault,  because,  with 
their  professions,  they  lead  their  readers  to  erroneous  in- 
ferences. Besides,  even  if  they  were  consistent  in  all  these 
cases,  we  contend  that  it  would  be  a  consistency  not  re- 
quired by  "  faithfulness,"  and,  therefore,  lying  beyond 
their  province.  Under  this  head  they  have  brought  in  a 
vast  amount  of  "  consequential ''  damages  which,  we  contend, 
the  readers  of  the  New  Testament  are  not  bound  to  pay. 

8.  As  to  the  use  of  the  article.  In  this  respect  it  was 
very  generally  supposed  that  the  Authorized  Version  stood 
in  special  need  of  large  emendations,  in  the  light  of  the 
scholarship  "  of  to-day."  Indeed  there  was  a  multitude  of 
grammarians  and  critics,  who,  to  determine  whether  to  put 
"  the"  or  "  a"  before  any  English  noun  in  the  singular 
number,  thought  it  necessary  to  inquire  only  whether  there 
was  or  was  not  an  article  before  its  Greek  correspondent  '■, 
and,  for  the  plural  number,  they  required  the  article  to  be 
inserted  or  omitted  in  the  English,  just  as  it  was  in  the 
Greek  :  and  they  were  clamorous  to  have  the  New  Testa- 
ment version  corrected  accordingly.  These  have  got  small 
comfort  from  the  Revisers,  but  more,  we  fear,  than  they 
deserved.  Our  Revisers  were  far  above  any  such  sweep- 
ing, schoolmaster  ideas.  They  had  a  scholarship  far  too 
broad  and  generous  for  such  narrow  and  Procrustean 
notions.  They  knew  that  the  rules  for  the  insertion  or 
omission  of  the  article  in  Greek  were  in  many  cases  different 
from  the  usage  of  the  English  ;  that  those  rules  were  sub- 
ject to  many  exceptions  in  good  Greek  usage,  and  that 
there  were  many  cases  where  the  article  was  inserted  or 
omitted  without  any  general  reason  which  we  can  discover. 
Moreover,  the  use  of  the  English  article  is  far  from  being 
reducible  to  fixed  and  universal  rules,  but  varies  from  time 
to  time  and  from  man  to  man.  Locke  wrote  an  "  Essay 
concerning  human  understanding."  We  now  say  it  was 
concerning  "  the  human  understanding."  And  the  use  of 
the  article  with  "  reason'"  has  varied  and  even  vibrated  in 


IN  TR  on  UCTION.  1 3 

the  course  of  two  hundred  years.  Accordingly,  the  inser- 
tion or  omission  of  the  article  in  a  translation  will  depend 
largely  upon  the  good  taste  and  good  judgment  of  the 
translator,  in  view  of  the  genius  of  the  two  languages  and 
the  drift  and  scope  of  the  discourse,  rather  than  of  any  for- 
mal rules.  If  in  these  respects  we  have  great  reason  to 
defer  to  the  Revisers,  have  we  not  equal  reason  to  defer  to 
the  translators  of  161 1  ?  We  think  the  Revisers  have,  in 
this  particular,  yielded  to  the  vulgar  clamor  more  than  was 
called  for,  and  have  made  changes  not  required  by  faith- 
fulness. But,  after  all,  in  innumerable  instances  they  have 
inserted  the  article  in  English  where  it  is  omitted  in  Greek, 
and  often  omitted  it  in  English  where  it  is  inserted  in 
Greek.  Where  there  is  no  Greek  article  before  a  singular 
noun  they  have  sometimes  inserted  "  a"  and  sometimes 
not  ;  and  they  have  even  inserted  "a"  for  the  Greek  arti- 
cle itself.  Where,  in  all  this,  they  have  diverged  from  the 
Authorized  Version,  they  are,  in  many  cases,  undoubtedly 
right  ;  but,  in  many  other  and  most  important  cases — 
quare?  Their  authority  is  greatly  shattered  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  themselves.  Take 
for  instance  the  insertion  or  omission  of  the  article  before 
the  word  "  heaven."  We  can  only  say,  in  all  humility, 
that  it  surpasses  our  ingenuity  to  find  or  guess  by  what 
rule  or  rules  they  were  guided.  They  have  omitted  the 
article  alike  when  the  Greek  inserts  and  when  it  omits  it  ; 
and  in  many  instances,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  have  inserted 
or  omitted  it  arbitrarily.  Yet  in  multitudes  of  these  cases 
they  have  altered  the  Authorized  Version.  Can  any  one 
show  how  or  why,  taken  as  a  whole,  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion is  not,  in  this  case  of  the  article  with  the  word 
"  heaven,"  as  faithful  to  the  Greek  and  as  good  English 
as  is  the  Revision,  with  all  its  studied  improvements  ?  The 
contortions  by  which  the  Revisers  elsewhere  seek  to  express 
the  presumed  distinction  indicated  by  the  absence  of  the 
Greek  article  are  something  ludicrous. 

9.  Another  great  hue  and  cry  has  been  persistently 
raised  against  the  Authorized  Version  for  its  numberless 
blunders    in    the    rendering   of   the    Greek    aorist    tenses. 


14  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

From  the  multitude  and  noise  of  these  critics,  all  radiant 
and  blatant  with  the  new  light  and  fresh  inspiration  from 
the  modern  apocalypse  of  the  mysteries  of  Greek  grammar, 
one  might  suppose  that  the  learned  translators  of  i6i  i  were 
simple  ignoramuses  in  regard  to  the  structure  of  the  Greek 
language.  It  seems  to  have  been  assumed  by  many — and 
modern  English  scholars  have  given  too  much  countenance 
to  the  idea — that  the  Greek  aorist  was  of  course  to  be 
rendered  by  the  English  simple  preterite  throughout,  or 
that  every  departure  from  this  rule  must  justify  itself  by 
irrefragable  proofs  as  an  extraordinary  exception  or  even 
as  a  solecism  ;  or  else  be  condemned  as  a  false  translation. 
But,  on  mature  examination,  the  facts  are  found  to  be  :  {a) 
That  this  rule  holds,  with  any  degree  of  strictness,  only  in 
sustained  narrative  discourse  ;  (/--)  In  numberless  instances 
the  English  employs  its  compound  preterite  or  perfect 
where  the  Greek  uses  the  aorist  ;  and  that  not  in  the  Bible 
only,  or  from  the  influence  of  the  Latin  Vulgate  upon  our 
former  translators,  but  in  our  current  discourse,  from  the 
influence,  it  maybe,  of  the  Latin  language  upon  the  struct- 
ure of  the  English.  Each  language  has  its  idioms  ;  and 
other  European  tongues  have  gone  farther  in  this  direction 
than  we — the  Italian,  the  French  and  the  German  famil- 
iarly using  their  compound  preterites  where  we  in  English 
should  use  the  simple  preterite  ;  {c)  In  poetical  and  pro- 
phetic composition,  in  the  epistolary  and  conversational 
style,  in  personal  addresses  and  exhortations,  in  impas- 
sioned utterances,  in  teaching,  in  brief  or  fragmentary 
statements  of  fact — in  short,  in  a  very  large  part  of  Holy 
Scripture — the  Greek  uses  the  aorist  where  the  English 
would  naturally  use  the  perfect  ;  and  that  so  freely,  that  in 
such  cases  no  a  priori  probability  can  be  claimed  for  the 
preterite  over  the  perfect,  as  the  proper  English  translation 
of  the  Greek  aorist. 

The  Revisers,  far  wiser  critics  than  the  average  of  the 
later  school — though  we  think  they  have  been  too  much  in- 
fluenced by  the  clamors  of  these  absolutists — have,  in  by 
far  the  greater  number  of  instances,  we  should  judge,  fol- 
lowed the  former  translators  in  rendering  the  aorist  by  the 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

English  perfect.  In  some  of  their  divergences  in  this  par- 
ticular they  are  probably  right  ;  but,  in  many  if  not  in 
most  of  these  cases,  we  must  take  the  liberty  of  siding 
with  the  translators  of  161 1  rather  than  with  the  Revisers. 
They  themselves  have  rendered  the  aorist  by  the  English 
perfect  too  often  to  claim  that  the  mere  fact  of  the  Greek 
form  being  aorist  proves  that  the  English  must  be  preter- 
ite. Whether  the  English  should  be  perfect  or  preterite 
must  very  often  be  determined  by  the  general  character 
and  drift  of  the  discourse,  by  the  immediate  context  and 
the  nature  of  the  case,  by  general  analogy  and,  perhaps,  by 
doctrinal  considerations,  as  well  as,  especially,  by  the 
natural  English  idiom.  And  for  sound  sense  and  good 
judgment  in  these  particulars,  it  is  no  want  of  due  respect 
to  the  learned  Revisers  to  say  that  we  think  we  have  as 
good  reason  to  defer  to  the  authority  of  the  translators  of 
161 1  as  to  theirs.  Some  cases  are  beyond  all  question  of 
any  party,  as  when  the  demoniac  child  falls  as  one  dead, 
insomuch  that  many  said,  ajte^aver.  This  is  the  Greek 
aorist  ;  but  the  English  must  be  "  he  is  dead  ;"  it  cannot 
be  "  he  died." 

10.  As  to  the  number  of  the  changes  made  by  the 
Revisers.  We  see  it  set  down  at  35,000,  and,  though  we  have 
made  no  enumeration  ourselves,  we  should  judge  that  esti- 
mate to  be  not  far  from  the  truth.  Now  the  number  of 
changes  recognized  by  them  in  the  Greek  text,  including 
those  in  the  margin  with  the  rest,  is  about  5500 ;  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  which  are  of  the  least  possible  importance  ; 
and,  of  the  others,  a  large  number  are  still  of  very  doubtful 
authority,  the  best  textualists  changing  their  minds  from 
edition  to  edition.  But,  as  we  have  before  said,  we  now 
dispute  none  of  these  new  readings.  If  to  these  v/e  add,  say 
10,000  changes  more,  as  having  been  required  by  what  could 
reasonably  be  called  faithfulness  to  the  original,  we  think  a 
very  generous  allowance  will  have  been  made  ;  for  we  cannot 
include  in  this  class  the  cases  where  the  Revisers  have  been 
inconsistent  with  themselves,  or  have  substituted  mere  Gre- 
cisms  of  expression  or  of  construction  for  idiomatic  English. 
There  will  then  remain  nearly  20,000  changes  either  wanton, 


1 6  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

or  trifling,  or  consequential,  or  Grecisms,  or  inconsistencies 
— or,  perchance,  proposed  improvements  of  the  English 
style;  as  in  their  elaborate  reconstructions  of  "also," 
"  therefore,"  etc.  As  to  this  last  class  of  changes,  we  leave 
the  English  reader  to  judge  whether  in  general,  for  good 
English  style,  the  Revision  is  superior  to  the  Authorized 
Version. 

These  notes  may  seem  very  extended,  and  some  of  them 
very  minute  ;  but  we  protest  against  the  inference  that  they 
are  exhaustive.  They  are,  after  all,  but  specimens,  and 
even  random  specimens  at  that.  They  are  the  result  of  one 
cursory  examination  of  the  Revision,  currently  jotted  down, 
and  afterward  expanded  with  cross-references,  and  shaped 
so  as  to  make  them,  at  least  in  some  degree,  readable.  A 
subsequent  review  of  any  chapter  has  always  brought  up  a 
new  crop  of  queries  and  objections;  they  are  still  as  thick 
as  August  blackberries.  Should  such  a  review  as  this  have 
been  undertaken  by  another  person,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  a  very  large  part — not  unlikely  the  largest  part — of  the 
passages  and  points  animadverted  upon  would  have  been 
different  from  those  here  criticised,  and  many  of  them 
probably  much  more  striking  and  important  than  any  in- 
cluded in  these  notes. 

In  concluding  these  introductory  statements,  we  must  al- 
lude to  one  trifling  point  which  we  have  not  seen  referred 
to — probably  because  it  is  so  trifling — but  which  may  have 
some  significance.  We  refer  to  the  spelling  "judgement," 
adhered  to  by  the  Revisers  throughout.  Is  this  a  specimen 
of  the  changes  which  they  judge  to  be  required  by  faith- 
fulness ?  Did  they  borrow  it  from  the  translators  of  i6i  i  .? 
If  so,  why  did  they  not  give  us  "  wisedome"  also — for  such 
is  the  spelling  of  King  James's  translators.  How  far  this 
newly  introduced  archaism  of  spelling  "judgement"  for 
judgment  may  have  become  prevalent  in  England  we  do  not 
know;  but  "judgment"  is  the  spelling  of  Johnson's  Dic- 
tionary, of  all  the  Oxford  Bibles,  we  believe,  for  centuries, 
and  of  the  best  editions  of  English  standard  authors  from 
about  the  year  1700.  Why  then  this  change  ?  Do  the  Re- 
visers propose  to  appear  in  the  role  of  spelling-reformers  ? 


ST.    MATTHEW.  17 

Before  the  Revision  was  undertaken,  it  had  always  been 
put  forward  as  one  important  and  leading  reason  for  mak- 
ing it,  that  the  English  language  had  greatly  changed  in 
nearly  300  years,  and  that  the  translation  needed  to  be  ac- 
commodated to  modern  use.  But  the  Revisers  have  made 
it  a  principle  to  remove  no  archaisms,  provided  they  were 
intelligible.  In  avoiding  many  changes  of  this  kind,  we 
think  they  were  right.  But,  in  fact,  instead  of  diminishing 
the  archaisms,  they  have  increased  and  intensified  them  ; 
not  only  retaining  "which"  for  "who,"  "or"  for  "ere," 
"be"  for  "are;"  and  "wot,"  "wist,"  "  alway,"  etc.;  but 
sometimes  putting  "  alway"  for  "  always,"  "  the  which,"  for 
"vvdiich,"  etc.;  and  multiplying  the  use  of  "  howbeit," 
"  straightway,"  etc. 

In  what  follows  we  expect  to  commit  many  oversights; 
but  it  is  due  to  ourselves  to  remind  our  readers  that  we  have 
not  had  the  aid  of  twenty  others  to  revise  and  correct  our 
solitary  work. 

ST.    MATTHEW. 


18.  "Had  been  betrothed,"  for  "was  espoused;"  but 
verse  20,  "thought,"  and  ii.  i,  "was  born."  These  are  all 
alike  for  aorist  participles  in  the  genitive  absolute,  depend- 
ing on  aorist  verbs. 

21.  "  It  is  he  that  shall  save,"  for  "  He  shall  save"^ 
avroi  Geoff ei.  But  (i)  the  Revisers  have  elsewhere  trans- 
lated avTo?,  by  "  he"  most  frequently,  as  in  Matt.  xiv.  2  ; 
xxi.  27;  Mark  iv.  27;  Col.  i.  17,  iS,  etc.,  etc.  ;  frequently  by 
"  he  himself,"  as  in  Luke  x.  1  ;  John  vi.  6,  etc.  ;  and  some- 
times by  "  himself"  alone,  as  in  Matt.  viii.  17  :  but  nowhere 
else,  out  of  more  than  a  hundred  places,  have  they  ever 
translated  it  by  this  phrase,  "  it  is  he  that."  Wherefore, 
then,  this  special  translation  here  .-"  (2)  If,  and  so  far  as, 
this  phrase  differs  in  sense  from  "  he"  or  "  he  himself"  or 
"himself,"  it  differs,  we  apprehend,  from  the  true  sense  of 
the  original,  in  which  there  is  implied,  we  think,  something 
peculiar,  inherent,  spontaneous,  absolute,  and  not  merely 


1 8  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

demonstrative  or  antithetical.  (3)  This  rendering  is,  at 
best,  not  a  translation  but  a  paraphrase,  and  this  is  its  deci- 
sive condemnation.  "It  is  he  that  shall  save"  is  not  a 
translation  of  avroz  GcoGei;  but  of  avroz  \or  ixElros  or 
ovToi]  iffriv  o  ffoDGayv:  see'  Luke  xxiv.  21  ;  John  ix.  37; 
xiii.  26;  xiv.  21;  Acts  X.  42;  compare  Matt.  xi.  19;  Luke 
xxii.  23,  28,  etc. 

23.  "The  virgin"  for  "a  virgin"  =  ?/ 7rfypS/rob.  So  they 
have  put  "the  sower"  for  "  a  sower"  (Matt.  xiii.  3,  etc.). 
This  is  well  enough,  but  is  the  change  necessary  ?  After 
all,  the  sense  remains  substantially  the  same;  for  who  can 
doubt  that,  however  personally  definite  1)  TTO'pStros  may 
have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  in  the  mind  of  the 
evangelist  the  application  had  become  generalized  ?  So  that 
"the  virgin"  means  "  she  (or  the  person  or  the  woman)  who 
is  a  virgin;"  just  as  "the  sower"  means  "he  (in  fact  any 
man)  who  is  a  sower."  So  the  Revisers  have  rendered  7} 
yvvy']  "a  woman,"  John  xvi.  21  ;  ro3  tpsvdsi  "a  lie,"  Rom. 
i.  25  ;  Tov  av^paoTtov  "  a  man,"  Rom.  vii.  r ;  i  Cor.  ii.  11; 
rr\  TTopr)]  "a  harlot,"  i  Cor.  vi.  16;  and  ra  daifxovia 
"devils"  in  instances  unnumbered. 

They  have  also  substituted  here  "which  is,  being  inter- 
preted," for  "  which,  being  interpreted,  is!"  How  impor- 
tant! how  necessary  to  faithfulness!  for  is  not  that  the 
order  of  the  Greek  ?  Why  did  they  not  add  "  with  us  God" 
for  "  God  with  us"  ? 

II. 

2.   "Saw"    for    "have    seen"  =  f/(Jo//f r,  and    then    "are 

•  come"  =  ?}XBo/(ev. 

4.  "Gathering"  for  "when  he  had  gathered"  =  ffvva- 
ycxyojv.     So,  at  verse    11,  "  opening"  for   "when  they  had 

<o-pc\\ed^'' =  avals cxvrei.     Is  this  necessary.?     But   see  xiv. 

.23,  "After  he  had  sent"  for  "when  he  had  sent"  =  an o- 
Xvaai  ^  Mark  xiv.  23,  "when  he  had  given  thanks"  = 
evxapiffTfjaai.  (Compare  Matt.  xxvi.  27,  "gave  thanks, 
and"=  €vxo:pi(jTT^ffa^ — the  A.  V.  is  not  bound  to  be  uni- 
form even  in  parallel  passages,  but  the  Revisers  are.)  See 
also -Acts  .XX  i.  2,  3,  4,  where  we  have  "  having  found"  twice 


ST,    MATTHEW.  19 

for  "  finding"  =  £L'/3&9r,  and  "when  we  had  come,"  etc., 
for  an  aorist  participle;  and  all  these,  like  avvayaycov 
and  aroi^avre;,  belonging  to  the  subjects  of  aorist  verbs. 
So  also,  at  verse  9,  "they  having  heard"  for  "  when  they 
had  heard." 

13.  "  Until  I  tell  thee"  for  '*  until  I  bring  thee  word." 
18.  "A  voice  was  heard   in  Ramah"  for  "  In  Ramah  was 
there  a  voice  heard."     Are  these  changes  necessary  to  faith- 
fulness ? 

23.  "  That  he  should  be  called"  for  "  he  shall  be  called" 
=  on  hX7^Bt}(J£T0lI.  The  original  familiarly  mixes  both 
constructions ;  but  why,  in  English,  should  one  be  neces- 
sarily substituted  here  for  the  other  ?  See  Matt.  xvi.  7  ; 
Mark  i.  15,  37,  etc.,  where,  as  in  almost  innumerable  sim- 
ilar cases,  they  render  in  the  oratio  recta  without  the  on. 
Was  it  any  of  their  business  to  modify  the  rendering  here 
in  view  of  the  difficulty  of  finding  the  prophecy  referred 
to? 

III. 

3.  "  The  voice  of  one  crying,"  as  A.  V.,  though  there  is 
no  article  in  the  Greek.  But  see  "An  unknown  God, " 
Acts  xvii.  23.  "  Make  ready"  for  "  prepare"  =  fVozyU«'(Tarre, 
though  "  make"  is  repeated  immediately  after.  They  have 
often  rendered  this  verb  by  "  prepare,"  as  in  Luke  xxiii. 
56;  xxiv.  I  ;  John  xiv.  2,  3  ;  i  Cor.  ii,  9;  2  Tim.  ii.  21  ; 
Pliilem.  23;  Heb.  xi.  16;  Rev.  viii.  6;  ix.  7;  xii.  6;  etc. 
Perchance  the  learned  Revisers  saw  some  nice  distinction 
to  which  they  felt  bound  to  be  faithful,  and  their  transla- 
tion might  be  well  enough  in  itself;  but  was  a  change  nec- 
essary ? 

7.  "Warned"  for  "hath  warned"  =  VTtedsi^ev.  Was 
this  necessary  to  faithfulness  ? 

17.  "Am  well  pleased"  =  ff(5'o«770'a',  and  so  also  at  xii. 
18.  Very  well ;  but  what  becomes  of  faithfulness  to  the 
aorist  ? 

IV. 

3.  "And  the  tempter  came  and  said  to  him"  for  "And 
when  the  tempter  came  to  him  he  said."     Here  the  new 


20  NOTES  ON-   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

text  changes  the  place  of  "  to  him  ;"  but  it  is  still  implied 
with  TTpocjeX^cor — see  viii.  2,  new  text ;  viii.  25  and  xxviii. 
18.  But  is  the  change  of  construction  required  by  faith- 
fulness ?  Either  mode  of  construction  for  the  Greek  par- 
ticipial clause  is  allowed  in  English ;  and  according  to  its 
avowed  principles,  the  A.  V.  uses  now  one  and  now  the 
other.  The  Revisers  had  just  used  the  construction  with 
"  when"  in  a  perfectly  parallel  case  of  the  Greek.  What 
then  prompted  the  change  here  ?  It  could  not  be  faithful- 
ness to  the  Greek.  Was  it  to  improve  the  English  by  vary- 
ing the  form  of  expression  and  preventing  the  disagreeable 
recurrence  of  similar  sounds  ?  But  this  is  scarcely  consis- 
tent with  their  own  principles  in  their  multitudinous  con- 
sequential changes.  Surely  the  simple  English  reader 
would  infer  that  the  Greek  construction  was  different  in 
the  two  cases  here,  where  they  make  the  English  construc- 
tion different — would  infer  it  quite  as  likely,  and  with  quite 
as  much  damage  to  his  exact  knowledge  of  the  Word  of 
God,  as  he  would  infer  that  there  were  different  words 
in  Greek  for  "  immediately"  and  "  straightway,"  if,  in 
otherwise  parallel  passages  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark, 
one  of  the  English  words  were  used  in  one  case  and 
the  other  in  another.  And  as  to  their  regard  for  the 
English  ear,  look  at  their  harsh  and  slavish  repetitions  of 
"enter,"  Matt,  xxiii.  13;  of  "mad,"  Acts  xxvi.  24,  25;  and 
of  "subject,"  I  Cor.  xv.  27,  28.  But  to  see  the  finishing 
touch  put  to  the  changes  required  by  faithfulness,  turn  to 
Matt.  XXV.  3.  There  they  substitute  "the  foolish,  when 
they  took  their  lamps,  took  no  oil  with  them"  for  "the 
foolish  took  their  lamps,  and  took  no  oil  with  them."  There 
the  Greek  participial  construction  is  precisely  the  same  as 
here  at  Matt.  iv.  3,  but  the  change  they  make  is  precisely 
the  reverse.  Is  this  faithfuness  ?  or  is  it  wantonness  .'*  or 
what  is  it.''  It  is  far  from  being  a  solitary  instance  of  such 
inconsistencies. 

4.  "  It  is  written"  (not  "  it  lias  been  written")  ==  yaypaTtrai. 
That  we  have,  in  English,  this  form  of  the  perfect  passive 
is  noted  here  for  further  use  ;  but  see  v.  10.  Note  also, 
"  by"  =  ini:   "  out  oV'^Sia. 


ST.    MATTHEW.  21 

7.  "Again,  it  is  written"  for  "  it  is  written  again."  Eut 
see  verse  4,  where  tiiey  did  not  say,  with  the  Greel^,  "Not 
by  bread  alone  shall  man  live." 

15.  "  The  land  of  Zebulun  and  the  land,''  etc.  No  article 
in  the  Greek. 

17.  Why  not  follow  the  Greek  faithfully  and  say  "  the 
kingdom  of  the  heavens  "  ? 

23.  "Disease"  (voaov)  and  "sickness"  (/xaXaHiar)  lor 
"  sickness  and  disease."  Very  nice  and  well.  But  then 
in  verse  24  they  should  have  said  "  all  who  were  ill,"  etc., 
instead  of  "all  who  Avere  sick,"  for  the  Greek  expression 
has,  in  form,  no  relation  to  /iaXauiav,  though  the  simple 
English  reader  might  think  so.  "The  sick"  are  sick  with 
"  diseases,"  see  here  and  at  Luke  iv.  40.  Here  and  at  Matt. 
X.  I,  B'spaTtsvsiv  (voffovi)  is  "to  heal;"  at  Luke  ix.  i  it 
is  rendered  "  to  cure,"     What  will  the  simple  reader  think.-* 

V. 

3.  "  In  spirit"  =  raJ  Ttvevj-iari.  But  see  John  xi.  ^2,  "  in 
the  spirit." 

8.  "  In  heart"  =  r/7  icapdirv :  not  "  in  the  heart."  Yet  at 
verse  i  they  carefully  put  "the  mountain"  for  "  a  moun- 
tain," and  at  viii.  12,  etc.,  "the  weeping"  for  "  weeping." 

9.  "Sons"  for  "the  children  ;"    but,  for  article,  see  iv, 

12  and  45.  "  In  heaven"  =  £v  ro:S  ovpavoH  :  see  vi.  20, 
where  "in  heaven"  =  €v  oupavcp. 

18.  "  Heaven  and  earth"  =  o  ovp.  and  /;  yT/.  But  see 
Acts  iv.  24. 

21,  27,  ^;^,  38,43.  "  Ye  have  heard"  =^  7>£OL>a'a:r£ — not 
"  3'e  heard." 

32.  "Is  put  away;"  why  not  "lias  been  put  away"  .^ 
See  verse  10. 

34.  "The  throne  of  God"  for  "  trod's  throne."  Why.? 
Does  "  God's  word"  mean  anything  else  tliau  "  the  word  of 
God"  .'  Would  swearing  by  "  God's  throne'  be  swearing 
by  "  a  throne  of  God  ".'' — Articular  nicety. 

35.  "The  footstool  of  his  feet"  for  "his  footstool." 
What    dialect  of  Enfjlish    is  this.?     Grant  that    the  Greek 


2  2  NOTES  ON   THE   LATE  REVISION. 

has  this  redundant  form,  must  we  use  it,  English  or  no 
Englisli  ? 

37,   "Of  the  evil  <?«<?"  =  ut  tov  Ttovrjpov. 

39.  Why  not  "  the  evil  one"  for  ro?  novrjpcp  also  ?  Do  the 
Revisers  mean  "the  evil  ^«^"  and  "  him  that  is  evil"  to 
have  the  same  or  a  different  import  ? 

45.  "That  ye  may  be"  (not  "  may  become")  =  ;^fV;70'Sf. 

VI. 

2.  "  When  therefore"  for  "  Therefore,  when"  =  orav  ovv. 
And  so,  often.  But  does  faithfulness  require  this  change? 
Is  a  translator  bound  to  follow  the  order  of  the  Greek 
words.'  Besides,  which  is  the  most  logical  English  }  Does 
the  illation  refer  to  the  clause  with  "when,"  or  to  the 
clause  on  which  that  depends  ?  But  see  vii.  20.  It  is  true 
that  in  this  last  phrase  Ixpaye  is  for  "therefore"  and  stands 
first  in  Greek ;  but  is  any  English  reader  to  infer  that 
"therefore"  has  a  different  sense  here  in  English  because 
it  has  a  different  position  }  The  truth  is,  in  English  "  there- 
fore" may  stand  first  or  second  in  a  clause,  and  the  question 
here  is  about  the  necessity  of  a  change. 

2,5,  and  16.  "  Have  received"  for  "  have"  ==  a;r6joL'0'ZT^. 
What  then  would  avtaaxV'^^^^  mean  ?  In  Philemon  15  the 
Revisers  put  "  have"  for  "  receive"  =  a'7rfj//S  I 

4  and  6.  "  In  secret"  =  iv  rep  Kpvnrcp:  not  "in  the  se- 
er Qi  place. ^' 

5.  "  To  stand  and  pray"  for  "  to  pray  standing"  =  fOTojTf ; 
7tpo(j8vx^ff^(xi.  Yet  they  claim  to  have  improved  the  trans- 
lation by  a  freer  use  of  the  participial  construction  in  Eng- 
lish. 

6.  "Having  shut"  for  "  when  tliou  hast  sliut."  But  sec 
iv.  2,  vii.  6,  etc  ,  etc. 

7.  "Gentiles"  for  "  heathen"  =  f-Srzjfo/  (ethnics).  But 
ordinarily  "  Gentiles"  is  for  i'^vj^. 

Ev  is  rendered  "for"  (their  much  speaking). 

9-1 1.  In  the  Lord's  Prayer  the  Revisers  have  refrained 
from  making  many  changes  which  consistency  with  the 
changes  elsewhere  made  would  require.  But  if  such  changes 
were  demanded  by  faithfulness  at  all,  they  Averc  most  stren- 


ST.   MATTHEW.  23 

uousl)'  demanded  precisely  in  tlie  most  familiar  and  oft- re- 
peated passages.  Here,  however,  the  order  is  freely  varied 
from  the  Greek  to  accommodate  English  idiom  and  even 
English  rhythm.  If  they  had  followed  their  own  precedents, 
the  Prayer  would  have  read  something  like  this:  "Our 
Father  which  (or.  even  thou  that)  art  in  the  heavens ;  Hal- 
lowed be  thy  name.  Come  thy  kingdom.  Come  to  pass 
(or  accomplished  be)  [see  i.  23  and  v.  18]  thy  will,  as  in 
heaven,  so  on  earth.  Our  bread  which  is  (or,  even  that 
which  is)  daily,  give  us  to-day."  As  to  "  the  evil  o/ie"  for 
"evil,"  we  think  the  preponderating  evidence  from  New 
Testament  usage  and  from  early  testimony  is  in  favor  of 
their  translation.  Still,  as  there  is  much  room  for  doubt, 
and  as  "  evil  "  includes  all  that  is  contained  in  the  other  ex- 
pression, perhaps  they  would  have  done  better  if  they  had 
interchanged  their  text  and  marginal  reading  ;  or  had  put 
"the  evil"  into  the  text  here  and  at  John  xvii.  15,  as  the 
A.  V.  had  done  in  the  latter  passage. 

14.  Their  painful  faithfulness  in  the  construction  of 
"also"  should  have  led  them  to  say  here:  "you  also  shall 
your  heavenly  Father  forgive."     See  also  verse  31. 

26.  "  Are  not  ye"  for  "  are  ye  not."     How  important ! 

27,  38.  Note  the  difference  between  the  Greek  and  the 
English  in  the  order  of  emphasis.  Here  they  leave  the 
Greek  and  follow  the  English. 

30.  "  If  .  .  .  doth  so  clothe"  for  "  if  .  .  .  so  clothe."  This 
was  to  avoid  "  clotheth."  But  they  might  have  accomplished 
this  purpose  by  simply  retaining  the  subjunctive  form  in 
the  English  ;  as  they  have  done  at  vi.  33  (ad  fin.)  Luke  xi. 
36;  I  Pet.  iv.  17;  Phil.  iv.  8;  Rom.  xii.  18;  Matt.  viii.  31; 
xiv.  28  ;  xxvi.  39;   i  Cor.  xiv.  5;  Rom.  viii.  9,  17,  etc. 

33.  "  His  kingdom  and  his  righteousness."  The  first  "  his" 
is  not  in  the  Revisers'  text. 

34.  "Will  be"  for  "shall  be."  But  is  it  not  an  assurance, 
of  the  nature  of  a  promise,  rather  than  of  a  mere  predic- 
tion ? 

VII. 

3.  "Beholdest"  =  jSXlTtaii.     But  see  xix.  26. 
6.  "  Under"  =  fV  =  amongr. 


24  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

9.  "  Shall  ask  him  for  a  loaf"  for  "  ask  bread  '*=  ahrjasi 
aprov.  There  is  no  "him"  in  the  Greek  ;  it  is  not  needed 
in  English;  and  it  makes  confusion  with  the  next  "him." 
See  10th  verse. 

12.  "All  things  therefore"  for  "  therefore  all  things."  As 
at  vi.  2 ;  but  see  verse  20. 

13.  "  Many  be  they  that  enter  in  thereby"  for  "  many  there 
be  which  go  in  thereat."  What's  the  difference  ?  They  often 
render  tpxojxai  by  "go."     See  Matt,  xxiii.  13,  note. 

15.  "False  prophets,  which"  =  tg5>'  'ip£vSo7tpoq)7]r(2)v, 
o:Tiv£b.  But  what  has  become  of  the  article.'  Is  it  not  as 
essential  to  the  prophets  as  it  is  to  the  mountain,  or  to  the 
weeping  and  gnashing.'  If  they  had  rendered  oi'rive^  by 
"  for  they,"  as  at  Phil.  iv.  3,  they  might  have  retained  the 
article  with  "  false  prophets"  without  any  ambiguity. 

16.  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  The  Revisers 
have  changed  the  order  of  the  A.  V.  here  to  conform  to  the 
order  in  the  Greek,  and  in  verse  20  of  A.  V.  ;  but  at  xii. 
33  they  have  forgotten  themselves,  and  returned  to  the 
order  of  the  A.  V.  at  this  verse  16. 

20.  '^  Therefore"  for  "  wherefore"  =  apcyye.  What  is  the 
difference .' 

37.  "  Smote"  for  "beat"  =  7tpo0iKo>p(xv{l). 

28.  "When  Jesus  ended"  for  .  .  .  "had  ended."  But 
see  Mark  vii.  17;  Luke  xxii.  14;  John  xiii.  31;  xxi.  15  ; 
Acts  xi.  2  ;  Rev.  v.  8,  etc. 

29.  "  Taught"  =7)r  SidadKcjv.  But  see  xix.  22,  "  was 
one  that  had"  =  7/v  i'xoov. 

VIII. 

I,  5.  Aorist  participles  in  dative  rendered  by  "when"  and 
the  pluperfect. 

6.  "  In  the  house"  for  "  at  home"  =  ev  rij  oiuio-.  Why 
not,  then,  put  "is  laid,"  or  "hath  been  laid,"  for  "  lieth  "  = 
/Ji/3X7jT(yi? 

12.  "Cast  forth"  for  "cast  out"  {ek/3(xXXgo).  But  see 
verse  16  and  xxii.  13.  And  then  "the  weeping  and  gnash- 
ing of  teeth  "  (tgSk  odovroov). 


ST.    MATTHEW.  25 

14.  "Lying"  for  "laid  and"  == /3s /3Xr^j.itvTjv  ytai :  and 
yet  "  footstool  of  his  feet"  !' 

16.  Why  not  say,  "  And  all  that  were  sick  he  healed," 
after  the  Greek  order  ?     See  their  translation  at  xx.  26. 

19.  "A"  for  "a  certain"  =  ff?  ;  also  at  ix.  iS.  "There 
came"  for  "  came"  (?). 

25.  "  Save,  Lord  "  for  "  Lord,  save  US'"  ==  Kvpie,  ffcoffov. 
What  now  about  faithfulness  to  the  Greek  ?  "We  perish," 
not  "we  are  perishing;"  why  not  ?    See  2  Cor.  ii.  15. 

26.  "There  was  a  great  calm,"  not  "  there  followed  "  = 
eyEvero.     But  see  Rev.  xi.  15,  19,  etc. 

31.  "  Herd  of  swine"  [tc^v  xolpoov).     See  to  o/jo?.     Cf. 

vii.  6. 

IX. 

6.  "  On  earth"  =  £7r}.  rf};  y?}?.     See  x.  34. 
S.  "  Which    had   given"  =  tov    Sovra — not    "  even     him 
which,"  nor  "which  gave." 

12.  "  But  when  he  heard  it  he  said" — not  "but  he,  when 
he  heard  it,  said"  =  o  dc  aHovffa?  eiTtev.  But  see  xii.  2  ; 
xxi.  38,  etc.,  etc. 

13.  "I  desire  mercy"  for  "  I  will  have  mercy"  ="EX€ov 
^tXco.  So  at  xxvii.  43,  etc.  ;  but  which  is  the  simpler 
English?  As  for  ambiguity  in  the  A.  V.,  the  phrase  is 
never  used  in  the  other  sense  without  "on"  or  "upon"  fol- 
lowing. 

31.  "But  they  went  forth  and  spread"  for  "But  they, 
when  they  were  departed,  spread"  ==  oz'  61  f'^sXS-ovrs; 
6ieq)tifiiGav.  But  see  Acts  iv.  24,  etc. ;  also  above  at  verse 
12. 

2,6.  "Not  having  a  (shepherd)"  for  "having  no"  = /n/ 
i'xovra  7Toi/.ie'va.     But  see  x.  9  ;  xiii.  5,  6;  Rev.  iii.  2. 

X. 

2.  "The  first"  =  ^rpciSro?.      No  Greek  article. 

8.  "Received"  for  "  have  received."  Is  this  spoken  of 
as  a  past  historical  event,  or  as  a  present  fact .'' 

16,  "  Serpents"  =  01  cxpsii  :  "  doves"  ==  cxi  Ttepiarspai. 
But  see  xxi.  12  and  Mark  iv.  7,  "the  thorns;"  "the  weeping 
and  gnashing;"  "the  sower,"  etc.,  etc. 


26  NOTES  ON    THE   LATE  REVISION. 

17,  18.  The  order  is  here  changed  to  conform  to  the 
Greek,  while  at  verse  5  a  change  is  made  in  just  the  con- 
trary sense.  Are  these  changes  required  by  faithfulness? 
They  make  no  change  in  the  meaning,  and  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  they  mend  tlie  English. 

21.  "The  father"  =  7rn'r//p,  English  idiom;  but  "his" 
should  also  be  "the;"  and  will  not  the  distinction  made  in 
the  translation,  between  "  brother"  and  "  the  father,"  lead 
the  English  ref^der  to  suppose  a  distinction  in  the  Greek  ? 

23.  "Gone  through"  for  "gone  over"  ^  rf  AiCz/rf.  (?) 
"The  next"  should  be  "the  other"  =r//r  irlpocv — if  wc 
tnust  have  the  article, 

24.  "A  disciple"  for  "the  disciple."  But  see  next  verse, 
and  see  verses  21  and  35,  and  2  Tim.  ii.  24. 

25.  '■'■  ^q"  =  yh^rjTcxi — not  "become." 

2S.  "  Be  not  afraid  of"  for  "  fear  not."  This  is  to  render 
the  cxTTO  following;  but  what  difference  does  it  make  in  the 
sense  ? 

32,  33.  "  Him  will  I  also  confess"  (and  so  A.  V.).  In  the 
Greek  the  "  him"  comes  last.  But  see  Rev.  viii.  2,  where 
the  A.  V.  is  altered  to  conform  to  the  Greek. 

35.  "A  man,"  "the  daughter"  (bis);  no  Greek  article  in 
either  case.  "  A  man's  foes"  certainly  means,  to  unsophisti- 
cated ears,  "  the  foes  of  a  man,"  and  yet  the  Greek  is  fj^poz 
rov  av^pooTCOVy  "  foes  of  the  man."     See  xii.  43. 

XI. 

3.  "  Now  when  John  heard  (for  '  had  heard  ')  in  prison 
the  works  of  the  Christ  (for  '  of  Christ'),  he  sent"=  o  dt 
loodvvi]^  anovaaz,  n.r.X.  The  Revisers  do  not  make  here 
their  pet  emendation  :  "  Now  John,  when  he  heard  .  .  . 
sent;"  as  see  xii.  2,  43  ;  Mark  vi.  16,  etc.,  etc.  It  may  as 
well  be  "had  heard"  as  **  heard,"  see  iv.  2;  with  "hear," 
"see,"  etc.,  cither  form  may  be  used.  TXiq  roL~K.piarov 
here  is  taken  not  from  John's  point  of  view,  but  from  tlic 
evangelist's  when  he  wrote,  and  may  as  properly  be  ren- 
dered "Christ"  as  "tlie  Christ;"  and  even  if  taken  from 
John's  point  of  view,  "  the  Christ"  w^ould  beg  the  question 
about  which  John  asked. 


ST.    MATTHEW.  27 

3.  "  He  that  cometh"  for  "  he  that  should  come"  =  6 
ipXOjJi^voz  ==  "he  that  is  to  come,"  or  "  that  shall  come  " 
They  have  rendered  it  '*'  is  to  come"  at  Rev.  i.  4,  8,  and  iv. 
8,  etc. ;  and  in  like  manner  they  have  rendered  ra  epxo- 
jxeva. 

4.  7.  "Go  your  way"  for  "go;"  "went  their  way"  for 
"  departed"  (TTopffc^).     But  see  xxviii.  19. 

5.  "  The  blind,"  etc.  Article  inserted  six  times  with  A. 
V. — not  "blind  men,"  etc. ;  and  so,  often  ;  and  so,  right. 
This  is  our  idiom.     See  xxi.  14. 

6.  "  Shall  find  no  occasion  of  stumbling  in"  = 
(THavSaXiff^fj  iv.  Elsewhere  they  are  more  brief,  and  ren- 
der: "  be  stumbled,"  "  stumble,"  "  be  offended."  See  xiii. 
21,  57,  etc. 

7.  "To  behold,"  for  "  to  see"  =  5f  <io'rt'0'3a'z.  But  see 
vi.  i;  xxiii.  5  ;  Mark  xvi.  14;  John  vi.  5;  Acts  xxi.  27; 
Rom.  XV.  24,  etc.  The  zcJfzr  which  follows  in  the  next  verse 
shows  that  this  has  the  same  meaning;  see  xiii.  17. 

12.  "Men  of  violence,"  for  "the  violent"  =  ftuxGraL 
AVhy  did  not  they  say  at  verses  "blind  men"  for  "the 
blind,"  to  show  their  reverence  for  the  Greek  article,  or 
rather,  for  its  absence?     See  also  verse  25. 

14.  "  Which  is  to  come"  for  "  which  was  for  to  come"  = 
o  fx^WoDv  s'px^gS'cxi.  But  see  John  xii.  4  ;  Acts  xxvi.  22  ; 
Rom.  V.  14  ;  Heb.  ii.  5  ;  vi.  5  ;  ix.  1 1  ;  x.  i .  In  Hebrews  it  is 
translated  "  to  come" — not  "  which  is  to  come  ;"  and  it 
probably  means  "which  was  to  come,"  /.^.,  "  which  was 
predicted  and  expected." 

16.  "  In  the  market  places"  for  "in  the  markets"  ==  ev 
ayopaT?.      No  article. 

19.    "  Is  justified" — aorist  in  Greek. 

25.  "  Of  heaven  and  earth."  Both  with  article  in  Greek. 
Of.  Acts  iv.  24. 

25,  26.  Aorist  rendered  preterite  for  perfect.   (?) 

27.  Aorist  rendered  perfect.  See  John  xvii.  2.  "  Will- 
eth" — not  "  desireth"  ==  ^ovXtjrai.  See  Mark  xv.  15; 
Acts  xxii.  30;  xxiii.  28;  xxv.  22;  xxvii.  43,  etc.  Compare 
John  xviii.  39. 


28  AZOTES  O.V   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

XII. 

2.  "But  the  Pharisees,  when  they"  for  "  but  when  the 
Pharisees,  they."  But  see  verse  24,  where  the  Revisers  re- 
verse their  construction,  with  the  same  Pharisees  and  the 
same  Greek  construction  !     See  also  xi.  2  ;  ix.  12. 

12.  "  How  much  is  a  man  of  more  value"  for  "how 
much  is  a  man  better."  If  tliey  must  change,  suppose  they 
had  said,  "Of  how  mvich  more  value"  ? 

"To  do  good"  for  "to  do  well"  =  ko-AgS?  Tcoie'iv^  not 
even  xaXov  noisiv.  Which  is  the  more  faithful  ?  See  2 
Thess.  iii.  13  ;  Acts  x.  33  ;  i  Cor.  vii.  37,  38  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  4, 
etc. 

20.  "Judgement"  =  t))v  upiGiv :  so  A.  V. 

21.  "  The  Gentiles"  =  i'Bv?] :  so  also  A.  V. 

24.  "The  prince"  =  <^r/3;t^oi^ri.  Why  not  "prince"  or 
"  a  prince"  ?     See  Mark  iii.  17,  etc. 

27,  28.  Article  omitted  twice — ra  daijuovia. 

33.  "  The  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit;"  but  see  the  cor- 
rection of  A.  V.  at  Matt.  vii.  16. 

40.  Note  how  the  order  of  time  and  place  in  the  Greek  is 
inverted  in  the  English. 

"  The  belly  of  the  whale"  for  "  the  whale's  belly"  ! 
When  we  compare  this  and  v.  34  with  2  Tim.  ii.  24,  I  am 
almost  tempted  to  infer  that  the  learned  Revisers  supposed 
"  the  whale's  belly"  might  mean  "a  belly  of  the  whale." 
But  how  many  bellies  had  the  whale  ? 

42.  "The  queen  of  the  south."  No  articles  in  Greek. 
But  see  2  Tim.  ii.  24  again. 

43.  "The  unclean  spirit,  when  he"  for  "  when  the  lui- 
clean  spirit  .  .  .  he."  But  this  is  departing  from  the  struct- 
ure of  the  Greek ;  and  the  ambiguity  which  they  would  re- 
move is  as  much  in  the  Greek  as  in  tlic  English  of  tlie  A.  V. 
This  change  of  construction  therefore  is  as  much  required 
in  our  Lord's  own  words  (if  he  used  the  Greek)  as  in  the 
English.  And  what  has  become  of  their  painful  faithful- 
ness to  the  exact  text  ?  See  xxi.  ^S,  etc.,  etc.,  etc.  Here 
they  assume  and  translate  a  text  for  which  there  is  not  the 
slightest  authority.     Besides,  they  might  have  reached  their 


ST.    MATTHEW.  29 

purpose  by  substituting,  from  the  margin,  "  it  "  for  "  he," 
referring  to  the  demon. 

46.   "  His"  for  the  article  only,  twice. 

XIII. 

2.  "Beach"  for  "shore."     How  necessary. 

3.  "  The  sower"  for  "  a  sower"  =  6  ffTtEipcov.  But  why 
change  .''  Does  6  arteipcov  here  mean  any  definite  particu- 
lar sower.'  Does  it  not  mean  indifferently  "  the  sower"  or 
"  a  sower,"  i.e.,  "  he  that"  or  "  one  that  sows"  ?  See  John 
V.  45;  and  viii.  50,  "  one  that  seeketh"  =  6  8,rjt&)V :  and 
Mark  iv.  26,  "casts  seed,"  Tov  <j7c6pov  : — the  generic  ar- 
ticle, 

17.  Preterites  for  perfects  (?). 

"  To  see"  =  idalr:  "  see"  =  ftXtTtETS.     Cf.  xi.  7,  8. 

18.  "  Hear  then  ye"  for  "  hear  ye  therefore"  (?). 
24.   "  Is  likened"  =  oj/^ozca^?^. 

37.   ''  Didst  thou  not"  for  "  didst  not  thou"  (.'). 

28.   "  Hath  done"  (aorist) ;  why  not  "  did"  ? 

(No  marginal  note.)  "  Wilt  thou" — not  "  desirest  thou." 
But  see  Matt.  xxvi.  15. 

30.  "  Time"  ==  naipch. 

34.  "  Without"  ==  jcyp/s. 

"  In  parables  unto  the  multitudes"  for  "  unto  the  multi- 
tude in  parables."  "•Parables"  here  is  the  emphatic  word, 
and  the  A.  V.  is  the  natural  English. 

36.   "  Left"  for  "  sent  away''  =  acpzi'i  {}). 

39.  Why  not  "  the  angels"  as  well  as  "the  end"  ?  Both 
are  predicates,  and  both  without  the  article. 

44.    "  In"  =  dTTO—''  of,"  "from,"  or  "for;"— why  "in".' 

46.  "  Sold"  ==  TtiTcpaHS — perfect  co-ordinated  with  aorists, 
and  all  here  rendered  preterite.     But  see  i.  22,  yeyovsv. 

48.  Order  changed;  see  xxi.  12,  etc.,  for  the  Greek 
order. 

50.  "  Furnace  of  fire,"  tov  Ttupc?.  Also,  as  at  verse  43^ 
"the  weeping"  (o),  and  "  of  teeth"  (rc5x). 

57.  "  Were  offended"  ==  effHardaXi^orro.    But  sec  xi.  6. 

58.  "  UnheVieV  =a7ri()Tiav — not  "disbelief."  But  see 
Mark  xvi.  16. 


30  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

XIV. 

I.  "Report  concerning  Jesus"  for  "fame  of  Jesus"  == 
axovyr  'l?j(fov{?).  "Is  risen"  =  i]ytp^i] — not  "  is  raised" 
or  "  was  raised."  But  see  Marie  xiv.  28  ;  John  ii.  23  ;  Matt. 
xxvi.  32;  Rom.  viii.  34,  etc.  "These  poAvers"  =ai  dvva- 
}xeii  (.'). 

9.  "Was  grieved"  for  "was  sorry"  =  £Aw/T7/S?/.  But 
see  xvii.  23;  xviii.  31;  xix.  22;  xxvi,  23,37;  Mark  x.  22 
("sorrowful"  for  "  grieved"  !) ;  xiv.  19;  John  xvi.  20;  2 
Cor.  ii.  2,  4,  etc. 

14.  "Had  compassion  on"  for  "  was  moved  with  com- 
passion towards"  =  f'o';rA<ar;KJ^/(?'^'/.  So  XV.  32.  But  see 
xviii.  27  ;  XX.  34.  In  this  last  case  they  put  "  moved  with 
compassion"  for  "  had  compassion"  I 

16.  "  They  have  no  need  to  go  away"  for  "  they  need 
not  depart"  =  ov  jpf/a-x'  ^'xovaiv  anEX^elv.  Had  they 
need  or  did  ihey  need  to  make  this  change  .''  As  for  "  de- 
part" it  is  true  the  Greek  word  is  rendered  just  before 
"  go  ;"  and  the  same  is  true  of  their  "go  away."  The  Re- 
visers not  unfrequcntly  render  aTZEV^Eiv  "depart,"  as  at 
Acts  xvi.  40. 

17.  Note  that  here  ovk  .  .  .  .  €i  jut}  means  "  but"  = 
"  only;"  while  at  xv.  24  it  means  "  not  ....  but:" — 
English  idiom. 

22.  "To  enter  into"  for  "  to  get  into"  (ahoat)  =  e/u/^yvai 
(not  eifftXBeiv).  (?) 

23.  "  After  he  had  sent"  for  "  when,"  etc.  =  aTToXvcTai. 
Why  not  "  sending,"  as  at  ii.  11  ? 

24.  "Distressed"  for  '' tossed''  =  Paaavi^oj^f.t^ov  —  of 
the  boat,  by  the  waves.  (?) 

25.  "Upon"  for  "on  ;"'  and  so  at  28,  29.  Why.'  How 
vastly  imporlant,  and  intensely  necessary  ! 

29.  "  Went  down  and  walked"  for  "  when  he  was  come 
down  he  walked."  But  see  "when  he  saw"  in  the  next 
verse,  also  for  an  aorist  participle.  Should  the  reader  be 
led  to  suppose  the  Greek  construction  different  in  the  two 
cases  ?  Do  the  Revisers  study  variety  of  expression  ?  But 
see    "straightway,"  etc.     By    the  way  they    have,   in    the 


ST.    MATTHEW.  31 

next  verse,  inadvertently  left  "  immediately"    (instead   of 
"straightway,"  their   archaic  pet)    iox  Ev'^ioo',    as  also   at 
xxiv.  29.    So  difficult  is  it  to  hold  split  hairs  steadily  in  view, 
or,  perhaps,  they  have  split  the  hair  a  second  time. 
33.    "  The  Son  of  God  ;"  compare  xxiii.  31. 

XV. 

5.  "That  wherewith  thou  mightest  have  been  profited 
by  me  is  given  to  God"  for  "  It  is  a  gift,  by  whatsoever  thou 
mightest  be  profited  by  me"  = /[/ojpor^  o  eav  eB,  ip.ov 
G3(pe\r}^^r\':>.  "  To  God"  is  not  translation,  but  paraphrase 
or  exposition.  Compare  this  with  their  painstaking  faith- 
fulness in  adhering  to  the  Greek  order  and  emphasis  in 
other  cases.  The  A.  V.  is  here  by  far  the  more  faithful  to 
the  original,  and  gives  the  same  sense  as  their  version,  and 
that  as  clearly  as  the  Greek  gives  it ;  and,  moreover,  has 
retained  the  right  grammatical  tense  for  cjcpsXr/^iji.  See, 
by  analogy,  Luke  xvi.  30,  31. 

9.  "  The  precepts"  for  "  the  commandments"  =  fVraA- 
/.lara.  While  they  were  making  their  correction  they 
might  as  well  have  made  it  accurate  and  said,  "  precepts" 
or  "  injunctions." 

12.  "  Were  offended" — not  "  stumbled,"  and  that  though 
their  rendering  here  might  stumble  the  reader — quite  as 
naturally  as  in  any  of  the  passages  where  they  have  intro- 
duced the  other  translation. 

14.  "  If  the  blind  guide  the  blind" — "guide"  for  "lead"? 
And  nothing  to  distinguish  the  singular  number.  There  is 
no  article  in  the  Greek,  but  it  is  literally  "if  blind  lead 
blind"  or  "if  a  blind  man  lead  a  blind  man/'  For  do  we 
not  naturally  speak  of  a  blind  man's  being  "led,"  rather 
than  "guided"  ? 

"  A  pit"  for  "  the  ditch"  (no  article)  ;  but  is  not  the  A.  V. 
the  true  sense  in  current  English  .''  Just  before  the  Re- 
visers say,  "  is  cast  into  the  draught,"  although  "  draught" 
has  no  article  in  the  Greek. 

32.  "  Would"  for  "  will."  Is  this  necessary,  and  is  it  ex- 
actly the  sense.''  He  refers  to  what  he  7ai//s,  not  to  what  he 
ivould.     He  is  resolved  upon  what  he  will  and  will  not  do. 


32  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

33,  '*  In  a  desert  place"  for  "in  the  wilderness"  =  fV 
eprjjAin'.  But  the  article  is  familiarly  supplied  in  such 
cases  after  tv  j  and  see  2  Cor.  xi.  26. 

XVI. 

1.  "  From  heaven"  =  eii  too  ovpavov — not  "out  of  the 
heaven,"  as  elsewhere, 

2,  3.  "  The  heaven"  for  "the  sky"  =  o  ovpavoi. 

5.  "  Forgot"  for  "  had  forgotten."  But  it  must  be  "  had 
forgotten"  with  any  construction ;  the  forgetting  must  be 
antecedent  to  their  coming  to  the  other  side,  and  so  the 
Greek  implies.  If  we  must  change  the  A.  V.,  would  it  not 
be  better  to  say,  "And  being  come  to  the  other  side,  the 
disciples  had  forgotten,"  etc.;   i.e.,  they  then  found  it  out  ? 

7.  "  Perceiving"  ==  yvovi. 

8,  1 1.  "  Perceive"  for  "  understand"  =  voslre  (?). 
19.    "On  earth,"  "in  heaven" — article  in  Greek. 

29.  "In  no  wise"  for  "  not"  =  ou /^z/.  But  see  xxiii. 
39  ;  xxiv.  35,  etc.,  etc. 

24,  25.  "  Would"  for  "  will"  =  BiXsi  =  \vi\ls  to.  The 
simple  future  after  "  if "  would  be  "shall,"  never  "will." 
There  could  therefore  be  no  ambiguity.     But  see  xxiii.  4. 

27.  "To  every  man"  =  euaatcp.  Elsewhere  they  often 
change   "  every"  to  "  each,"  making  questionable  English. 

XVII. 

5.  "My  beloved  Son"  =  vio?  /lov  6  dyartriToi — not 
"  a  son  of  mine,  even  the  (or  my)  beloved."  But  see  xxv. 
40;  Luke  ix.  35;  Mark  v.  15;  i  Cor.  xv.  38;  Rev.  iii.  2; 
Gal.  ii.  30.  * 

8.  "  Lifting  up"  for  "  when  they  had  lifted  up"  =  erra- 
pavrei.     See  xiv.  23;  Acts  xxi   2,  4;  cf.  Acts  i.  9. 

"No  one"  for  "no  man;"  and  so,  often.  But  in  llie 
next  verse  they  say  "  no  man."  Does  OL'(^f/5  mean  "  no 
one"  and  ^ajde'ii  "  no  man".'  Or  did  they  fear  an  infer- 
ence as  to  Christ's  humanity? 

13,  35.  How  necessary  to  faithfulness  are  these  changes 
in  the  order  of  the  words  ! 

26.  "  Therefore  the  sons  are  free"  for  "  then  arc  the  chil- 


ST.    MATTHEW.  33 

dren  free"  =  apaye  sXsvS^epoieiffiv  oivioi.  "  Sons'"  may 
be  more  accurate  than  children  ;  but  why  "  therefore"  for 
"then"  ?  As  to  arrangement,  the  A.  V.  is  clearly  nearer 
the  order  and  emphasis  of  the  original. 

27.  "Lest"=  i'ya  ^.ly) — not  "that  not."  But  see  John 
xii.  35  ;  Col.  ii.  4  ;    iii.  21  ;   Phil.  ii.  27,  etc. 

"  Cause  to  stumble,"  and  so  xviii.  6,  But  see  xv.  13. 
"Stumble"  is  ambiguous  as  well  as  "  ofiend." 

XVIII. 

3.  "  Turn"  for  "be  converted"  =  cr/Jo'^^/'/Tf.  (?)  "  Little 
children"  =T<a;  Tra-zcJ^/o".      Article? 

7,  8,  9.  "  Occasions,''  etc.  ==  to5k  anavdaXcav  :  "  the  oc- 
casions," etc.  ^  r«  GytavSaXa:  "  life"  =  r?7V  8,Gor}v. 
"The  eternal  fire" — (not  "the  fire  which  is,"  or  "  even 
that  which  is")  =  rd  nvp  to  aiooviov  : '^  the  hell  of  fire" 
(not  "  the  hell  of  the  fire") — rov  nvpoi. 

12.  "Which  goeth  astray,"  for  "  which  is  gone  astray  ;" 
present  participle  ="  which  is  straying,"  or  "  is  gone 
astray." 

16.  "Two  witnesses  or  three,"  for  "  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses." Is  not  this  a  piece  of  hypercriticisni  ?  The  A.  V. 
gives  the  usual  English  phrase.  See  Heb.  x.  28  and  2  Cor. 
xiii.  r;  and  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  See  also  Deut. 
xvii.  6  and  xix.  15. 

iS,  19.  "  On  earth"  (thrice), — rrj^  :  "in  heaven"  (twice), 
— rc5  .-  "in  heaven"  =  fV  ovpavoiS.  See  also  xvi.  19; 
but  compare  xxiii.  9. 

20.    "  In  my  name,"  Gr.  eii. — Note  and  cf.  xxviii.  19. 

32.  "Called"  for  "  after  that  he  had  called."  But  see 
xiv.  23.  Either  way  is  well  enough;  but  why  change,  and 
that,  first  one  way  and  then  another  ? 

XIX. 

I.  "Beyond  Jordan,"  rov;  and  so  at  John  i.  28;  iii. 
26  ;  but,  Matt.  iii.  13,  they  say  "  to  the  Jordan,"  and  Mark 
i.  9,  "in  the  Jordan."  The  established  English  usage  has 
Jordan  without  the  article  (in  the  Palestinian  point  of  view), 
even  in  the  nominative  case;  see  Joshua  iii.  15,  "  Jordan 


3+  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

overfloweth."  If  this  is  an  archaism  it  is  no  more  nnintel- 
ligible  or  ambiguous  now  than  is  "which"  for  "who,"  or 
"or"  for  "  ere,"  or  "  howbeit,"  or  "  straightway." 

5.  "His  father  and  mother"  for  "  father  and  mother." 
The  A.  V.  is  literal  and  plain.  In  the  Greek  there  is  no 
article. 

II.  "All  men  .  .  .  not"  =  of  7r<xyrf;,=  "  not  all  men." 
Cf.  I  Cor.  vi.  12,  and  x.  23. 

20.  "Have  observed"  for  "have  kept"  =  eqivXa^a- 
^njy.  (?) 

22.  "Was  one  that  had"  for  "  had"=  7)r  i'xoov.  But 
see  vii.  29  ;  Mark  i.  22,  etc. 

23.  "It  is  hard  for  a  rich  man  to  enter"  for  "  a  rich 
man  shall  hardly  enter."  Here  the  A.  V.  is  exactly  literal 
with  tense,  adverb  and  all. 

24.  What  is  the  difference,  to  a  simple  reader,  between 
'■  a  needle's  eye"  and  "the  eye  of  a  needle".''  Do  the  Re- 
visers suppose  that  "a  needle's  eye"  means  "an  eye  of  a 
needle,"/.^.,  "one  of  the  eyes  of  a  needle".'  And  do  they 
intend  to  insinuate  this  meaning?  A  needle  is  ordinarily 
cycloptic,  or,  at  the  least,  monoptic.  But  ah  !  the  Greek 
article!     Or  must  St.  Matthew  be  conformed  to  St.  Luke? 

25.  "  Astonished  exceedingly"  for  "  exceedingly  amazed  ;" 
— consequential. 

26.  "Looking  upon  them  said"  for  "beheld  them  and 
said"  =  f'yW/5AiY'^5   ^'ittsv.     But  see  vii.  3  and  xxvi.  27. 

27.  "  Lo"  for  "  behold"  =  zdov.  But  see  i.  20,  23  ;  ii.  i, 
9  ;  X.  16;  XX.  18,  30,  etc.,  etc.     What  hair  is  split  here? 

"Then"  for    "  therefore"  =  orpa'.     But   sec   at    xvii.   26 
"  therefore"  for  "  then"  =  ocpaye.     What  hair  is  split  again 
here  ? 

30.  The  Revisers  show  here  that  the  sense  can  be  con- 
veyed in  English  without  inserting  the  article  ;  and  their 
manipulation  is  skilful.  But  what  is  gained,  by  their 
change,  in  faithfulness  to  the  Word  of  God?     See  x.  2. 

XX. 

I.  "  77w/ .//'  should  be  ^^  that  was.'"  So  the  American 
Revisers. 


ST.    MATTHEW.  35 

7.  "  Hath  hired"  =  f/fzo'S'a?0'a:ro.  10.  "Would  receive" 
=  XrfiArpovrai. 

17.  "As  Jesus  Avas  going  up"  for  "Jesus  going  up"= 
o  h^ffov?  ava/3aiva}v.  Which  is  the  more  faithful  ?  and 
Avhat  of  participial  constructions  ? 

19.  "  Shall  be  raised  up"  for  "  shall  rise  again."  In  the 
Revisers'  text  iyep^tjasrai  is  put  for  avaarriGarai.  But 
see  xiv.  2  ;  xxvii.  6^,  64  ;  xxviii.  6 ;  Mark  xvi.  6  ;  etc. 

21.  "What  wouldst  thou?"  for  "  what  wilt  thou.'"  i.e., 
"  what  wilt  thou  have.'"  =  r/  ^eXsi^ ;  (?) 

23.  "  //  is  for"  for  "  //  shall  be  given  to."  The  latter  inser- 
tion keeps  up  the  connection,  and  is  as  true  as  the  other. 
"Hath  been  prepared"  for  "is  prepared."  But  see  yi- 
ypaTTtau 

25.  "Their  great  ones"  for  "they  that  are  great"  =  Oi 
j.i£ydXoz.  At  Mark  x.  42,  "  their  great  ones"  =  01  jueydXoi 
avTcav  (so  also  A.  V.).  But  is  not  a  pronoun  as  impor- 
tant as  an  article?  What  has  become  of  their  zeal  for  infin- 
itesimal exactitude  in  conforming  to  every  particle  of  the 
text,  in  bringing  out  the  slightest  diiferences  in  different 
passages,  and  particularly  in  their  new  text?  See  "a 
needle's  eye,"  "  the  belly  of  the  whale,"  "  two  witnesses  or 
three  ;"  see  also  xix.  30  ;  and  their  contortions  to  keep  the 
article  out,  and  yet  to  get  it  in,  at  Gal.  ii.  20,  etc.,  etc.  If 
the  A.  V.  had  given  the  same  rendering  here  as  in  St.  Mark, 
although  there  was  no  avtc^v  in  the  text,  or  if,  the  avrcSv 
being  in  the  text,  they  had  translated  as  they  did,  the  Re- 
visers would  have  shown  no  more  than  a  reasonable  breadth 
of  the  critical  mind  in  leaving  the  translation  unchanged. 
But  the  change  they  have  made  only  combines  pettiness 
with  inconsistency.  We  beg  pardon  for  speaking  plainly. 
If  we  are  asked  why  make  so  much  ado  about  a  trifling 
oversight  ?  we  answer  that,  if  an  oversight,  it  is  an  over- 
sight in  making  a  petty  correction  ;  and  what  we  most 
object  to  all  along  is  precisely  the  pettiness  of  the  greater 
part  of  the  corrections  the  Revisers  have  indulged  in. 

26.  "  Not  so  shall  it  be  among  you"  for  "  it  shall  not  be 
so  among  you"  ==  ovx  outgj?  i'arai  ev  vfxiv.  But  Cf.  ix. 
13;  viii.   16,25;  xii.  33;  xv.   5;  xxi.  12,33;    xxiii.    1,2,3, 


30  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE   REVISION. 

etc.     And   why  not  say  "  not  all"   {pv  Ttavrei)  7\X  xix.   ir, 
and  be  logically  as  well  as  literally  correct  ? 

27.  "  Would"  for  "  will."  The  simple  future  would  be 
"  shall."     There  is  no  ambiguity  therefore  in  the  A,  V. 

XXI. 

5.  "  Riding"  =€7Tif5sftT]KooZ.  Did  they  see  the  perfect, 
or  did  they  render  by  consequence?  "The  foal  of  an 
ass"  =  viov  VTTo^vyiov.  Why  not  "  a  foal  of  an  ass,''  or 
at  Least,  "  an  ass's  foal"  ? 

8.  "  Cut  and  spread."  These  are  imperfects;  why  not, 
"went  on  cutting  and  spreading"  .' 

10.  "  The  prophet,  Jesus,  from  Nazareth"  for  "  Jesus, 
the  prophet  of  Nazareth."  0  arto  N.  =  "  who  is,"  or,  in 
the  most  approved  style,  "even  he  that  is."  How  hap- 
pened they  to  forget  this  ? 

13.  Why  did  not  the  Revisers  say,  "  And  the  tables  of 
the  money  changers  he  overturned,"  and  thus  imitate  the 
change  of  order  in  the  Greek,  as  at  xiii.  48 ;  a  change  which 
may  contain  some  latent  emphasis  or,  perchance,  some 
mystery  ? 

16.  ''Did  you  never  read"  for  "have  ye  never  read." 
But  see  xii.  3,  5;  xix.  4  ;  xxii.  31  ;  etc. — where  ov7i  instead 
of  ovdenors  :  but  what  of  it.?  Does  the  latter  require  the 
tense  to  be  altered  here  ?     See  also  v.  21,  27,  etc.,  etc. 

23,  24.  Why  didn't  they  say  :  "  In  what  authority  ?" — in- 
stead of  "  by"  =  fV,  as  elsewhere  ? 

28,  41.  "The  vineyard"  for  "my  vineyard;"  because 
the  fxov  has  fallen  out  of  their  text.  But  they  find  the 
article  enough  for  the  possessive  pronoun  in  numberless 
instances;  see  verse  31,  John  xix.  30,  etc.,  etc.,  and  com- 
pare XX.  25. 

33.  Why  not,  "another  parable  hear  ye"  ?  See  xx,  26; 
xxiv.  33,  etc. 

38.  "But  the  husbandmen,  when  they  saw,  said"  for 
"but  when,  etc.,  they  said."     But  see  ix.  12  ;  xi.  2. 

"  Let  us  take."  But  their  text  is  changed  to  ffxco/xsv  = 
"  let  us  have' '  or  "  hold" — not  seize  or  take  =  yiardax^M^^- 

41.   "  Miserable"  for  "  wicked"  =  Hauovi.  (?) 


ST.    MATTHEW.  37 

42.   "  The  head  of  the  corner. "    Noarticles.    Cf.  xxiii.  15. 
44.    "Scatter  as  dust"  for"grind  to  powder"  ^XiKfxrj- 
(Tsi.  (?)     Observe  it  is  done  by  a  falling  stone. 

XXII. 

2.  "Is  likened"  =  (hfj-oioo^i].  3.  Why  not  "bid  the 
bidden"  or  "call  the  called"  ?     See  Acts  xxvi.  24,  25. 

4.  "  Made  ready"  for  "prepared."  See  "  ready"  imme- 
diately afterwards. 

6.  "Entreated  shamefully"  for  ".  .  .  spitefully  = 
vftpiffav.  No  shame  in  the  word,  but  wanton  violence  and 
outrage.  Cf.  Mark  xii.  4;  Luke  xx.  11,  where  "shame- 
fully" is  right. 

II.  "To  behold  (for  see)  the  guests"  =  '^Eaaaa'^at. 
Butseevi.  i;  xxiii.  5;  Markxvi.  14;  Acts  viii.  18,  etc.  So 
this  strange  English  is  not  enforced  by  the  Greek. 

13.  "Hand  and  foot"  =  TCcSa'i  xai  j^fffpo'S,  "feet  and 
hands;"  but  see  "  the  footstool  of  his  feet,"  and  the  "two 
witnesses  and  three,"  etc. 

21.  Why  not  say  "the  things  that  are  Caesar's  to 
Caesar,  and  the  things  that  are  God's  to  God"  and  thus 
continue  "  faithful"  to  the  Greek  ?     See  Mark  v.  15. 

34.  "  But  the  Pharisees,  when  they  heard  .  .  .  gathered," 
for  "but  when  the  Pharisees  heard,  they  were,"  etc.  See 
xii.  2,  24. 

^6.  "The  great"  =  j-iS)/aX?j  :  38,  "the  great"  =  7) 
fASyaXy.     Both  are  predicates. 

39.  "A  second"  for  "the  second"  (also  in  margin). 
But  see  Mark  xii.  31,  "the  second,"  alike  in  both  cases,  no 
article. 

40.  "  The  whole  law"  for  "all  the  law"  =  oXoz  6  vojixo?- 
But  why  not,  then,  say,  at  verse  37,  "  thy  whole  heart," 
"thy  whole  soul,"  etc. ;  and  see  Matt.  iv.  23,  24 ;  ix.  26,  31, 
etc. ;  also  Acts  ii.  2,  "  all  the  house  ;"  x.  22,  "all  the  nation  ;" 
xi.  28,  "all  the  world"  (with  A.  V.  ) ;  and  compare  Matt. 
xxiv.  14,  "the  whole  world"  (with  A.  V.).  Why,  then, 
must  faithfulness  make  a  change  here  ? 

42.   Tov  Jaj3id.     The  rov  here  belongs  to  AafiiS  in  the 


38  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

genitive.  So,  probably,  the  rov  before  the  list  of  names 
in  St.  Luke's  genealogy  of  Christ,  Luke  iii.  23-36  ;  and,  if 
so,  "the  son"  there,  (both  words),  should  be  printed  in 
italics  (as  being  inserted),  after  the  A.  V. 

43.  "  In  the  Spirit"  =  fV  nvsvjJLari.  So,  then,  it  seems 
the  absence  of  the  article  rather  than  its  presence  shows 
Ttvsv/xa  to  be  the  Holy  Spirit.     Compare  Matt.  v.  3. 

XXIII. 

4.  "They  will  not* move  them"  =  ov  BtXovffi.  Here 
there  might  be  ambiguity;  but  see  xvi.  24;  xxvi.  15. 

9.  "On  the  earth;"  but  see  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18,  etc. 
The  change  proposed  in  this  verse  by  the  American  Re- 
visers is  well  enough  in  itself,  but  unnecessary.  See  John 
viii.  53. 

13.  If  this  repetition  of  "enter  in"  is  required  by  faith- 
fulness, then  they  should  have  "bid"  "the  bidden"  to  the 
marriage.  Besides,  they  were  bound  to  complete  their  im- 
provement here  by  rendering,  "  for  ye  enter  not  in  your- 
selves, neither  suffer  ye  them  that  are  entering  in  to  enter 
(in)."  They  themselves  render  eiffeXS'Siv,  "come  under," 
Matt.  viii.  8  and  Luke  vii.  6;  "come  into,"  Matt.  xvii.  25; 
and  "go  in"  or  "  went  in,"  John  x.  9, — here  it  is  "enter 
in"  and  "go  in"  in  immediate  succession — ,  Acts  i.  21  ;  x. 
27;  xi.  3  ;  xvii.  2  ;  Mark  xv.  43  ;  Luke  xi.  37  ;  xv.  38;  xxiv. 
29;  Matt.  XXV.  10.  And  Liddell  and  Scott  define  it  "to  go 
or  come  in."  Yet  in  some  twenty  or  thirty  cases  they  have 
changed  "go  in"  to  "enter  in,"  with  no  more  necessity 
than  here,  or  in  the  passages  just  referred  to. 

15.  "A  son"  for  "the  child."  31.  "Sons"  for  "the 
children."  Predicates  or  in  apposition.  See  xiv.  33  ;  xxiv.  8. 

22.  "  The  heaven"  for  "  heaven  ;"  and  then,  verse  23,  the 
article  omitted  three  times  and  three  times.  See  verse  24, 
where  "  strain  out" is  right;  but  "the"  is  no  more  required 
with  "gnat"  and  "camel"  than  with  "mint,  anise,  and 
cummin,"  in  verse  23. 

39.  Oo /^7^=  simply  "not;"  and  so  Mark  xiii.  3  ;  Matt, 
xxiv.  35  ;    xxvi.  29,  etc.,  etc.     But  see  Matt.  xvi.  28. 


ST.    MATTHEW.  39 


XXIV. 


9.  "All  the  nations"  for  "all  nations" — and  so,  often. 
But  what  is  the  faithful  difference  in  the  sense  ? 

13.   "To  the  end"  =  f/s  ri'Ao?. 

15.  "  When  therefore  ye  see"  for  "  when  ye  therefore  shall 
see'  =  orav  ovv  i'drjTS.  But  see,  for  "shall,"  Mark  xiii. 
7 ;  Luke  xvii.  10,  etc. ;  and  for  "  therefore,"  Matt.  xxv.  38. 

22.  "  Except  those  days  had  been  shortened  no  flesh  would 
have  been  saved;"  but  they  "  shall  be  shortened."  This,  in 
English,  is  incongruous.  Is  it  required  by  tlie  Greek  ?  Is 
not  the  rule  that  enjoins  it  contradicted  by  this  fact  of  the 
language  ?  See  xxvi.  24.  In  St.  Mark  the  construction  of 
the  parallel  passage  is  consistent,  being  framed  throughout 
from  the  prophetic  or  predestinate  point  of  view. 

27,  37.  Is  the  change  of  order  necessary  to  faithfulness, 
or  was  it  to  improve  the  English  expression  ? 

29.  "Stars  shall  fall  from  heaven,"  e«  rod  oup.  "Pow- 
ers of  the  heavens,"  rc^v  oup.:  30.  "  Sign  in  heaven," 
£v  Tcp  ovp.:  "  Clouds  of  heaven,"  tov  ovpavov  :  31.  "End 
of  heaven,"  oupavc^v  :  36.  "  Angels  of  heaven,"  rcjr 
ovpav(2)v  :  35.  "Heaven  and  earth,"  o  oup.  and  i)  y^h 
See  Acts  iv.  24. 

32.  "  Now  from  the  fig-tree  learn  her  parable."  Greek 
order,  but  see  xx.  26;  xxi.  33.  No  pronoun  for  "her,"  but 
see  xxi.  28,  41. 

42.   This  ^  inelvo  :  and  so  A.  V, 

XXV. 

18.   "  Digged  in  the  earth"  =  oSpv^s  yyv. 

20,  22.  "  Lo"  for  "  behold"  =  zb^f.  But  see  65;  Mark 
ii.  24;  xi.  21,  etc.,  etc.  "He  that  received"  for  "he  that 
had  received"  =  o  Xa/Scov.    Cf.  John  xiii.  26  ;    Heb.  xi.  17. 

21,  23.  "Hast  been"  =7)?.  Why  not  "wast"?  But 
who  can  exactly  measure  the  depths  of  faithfulness  ? 

24.  "He  that  had  received"  =0  eiXr^cpoD^.  But  it  is 
manifestly  co-ordinated  with  o  Xafiojv. 

25,  27.     "  Thine  own"  for  "  that  is  thine"  =  to  (Jov,  not 

TO  I'dlOV. 


40  NOTES  ON    THE   LATE  REVISION. 

26,  "  Wicked"  ==  novrjps,  not  *'  evil,"  and  so  Luke  xix. 
22.  But  see  Matt.  xii.  45  ;  xvi.  4 ;  Luke  xi.  26  ;  Col.  i.  21  ; 
2  Thess.  iii.  2,  etc.,  etc. 

28.  "Take  ye  away,  therefore,  from"  for  "  take  there- 
fore from"  =  apaTE  ovv  ano.  The  **ye"  is  not  expressed 
in  the  Greek;    and  see  xxiv.  15. 

37.  "Athirst"  for  "  thirsty"  =  (yz^'c5rrar.  This  pains- 
taking emendation  seems  to  have  been  made  because  (with 
A.  V.)  the  Revisers  have  "athirst"  at  verse  44.  But  why 
stop  at  this?  If  duf'c^vra  must  be  "  athirst,"'  how  should 
sSliprfffa  remain  "  I  was  thirsty".'  Their  shortest  way  would 
have  been,  if  they  nn^s^  correct  so  flagrant  a  piece  of  un- 
faithfulness in  the  A.  v.,  to  put  "thirsty"  for  "athirst" 
at  verse  44,  and  then  all  would  have  been  harmonious. 

40.  "  One  of  these  my  brethren,  even  of  these  least' '  for 
"one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren"  =  evi  toutcov 
Tear  aSeXtpc^v  jxov  rcov  iXaxiGToov.  But  the  second 
"these"  is  not  in  the  Greek.  See  the  "daily  bread"  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  for  the  construction. 

XXVI. 

2.  "Cometh"  for  "is"  =  ylrerai  :  5.  "arise"  for 
"  be"  =  yevf^Tai  :  54,   "be"  ==  yeveaS^ai. 

7.  "Exceeding  precious"  for  "very  precious"  = 
ftapvrifxov: — exceeding  faithful ! 

9.  "The  poor"  =  7trooxoT<i  (no  art.).  Why  not  say,  at 
verse  11,"  For  the  poor  ye  have  always  with  you,  but  me  ye 
have  not  always  ;"  thus  taking  advantage  of  the  Greek  initial 
and  of  the  English  final  emphasis  .'  But  compare  John  xii.  8. 
If  they  must  change  there,  why  not  also  here.' 

12.  "Did"  ^=  eTtoir/ffs  :  13.  "Hath  done"  =  inohjae. 
Note  a  painstaking  reconstruction,  and  all  to  secure  the 
presumed  logical  place  for  "  also." 

15.  "  Are  ye  willing  to"  for  "will  ye"  =  ^fXere ;  but 
see  xxiii.  4;  Acts  xxv.  9. 

15.  "Weighed"  =  i'GT7]ffav : — a  possible  but  at  least  a 
doubtful   sense  here. 

17.  "Of  unleavened  bread"  for  "  of  the  feast  of  unleav- 
ened bread"  =  ro5v   a^vjuoov.     Faithfulness  to  the  sense  ? 


ST.    MATTHEW.  41 

To  the  syllables  ?    But  what    has    become  of  the  article  ? 
"  Make  ready"  for  "  prepare."   (?) 

18.  "Time"  =  natpo?. 

19.  "Appointed"  for  "had  appointed"  =  (TvreTa^sv. 
But  "  had  appointed"  expresses  in  the  English  the  strict 
relation  of  the  time.     See  xxviii.   16;   Luke  xxiv.  24. 

21.  '^Betray"  =  TTapadcJffei  :  but,  at  16,  "deliver"  == 
7rapa6&)  is  substituted  for  "  betray,"  as  "  deliver' '  had  been 
used  just  before.  Why  not  make  the  change  there  as  well 
as  here  ?  Musi  the  A.  V.  be  altered  ?  Besides,  the  Revi- 
sers are  not  afraid  of  verbal  repetitions.  Rather  they  are 
bound  to  make  them  after  the  Greek,  See  i  Cor.  xv.  28, 
etc. 

24.  "  Good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born" 
for  "it  had  been  good,"  etc.  But  see  xxiv.  22.  Surely  if 
7/v  conditioned  by  ei  with  an  aorist  indicative  can  mean 
"  were"  (==  "  would  be,")  sffcoB^?/  with  dv,  and  conditioned 
in  like  manner,  can  mean  "would  be  saved"  instead  of 
"  would  have  been  saved."  It  would  really  seem  as  if  the 
A.  V.  must  be  corrected,  render  as  it  may.  If  it  renders 
"had  been,"  then  "were"  or  "  would  be;"  if  it  renders 
**  would  be,"  then  "would  have  been"  or  "had  been." 
But  see  John  xv.   22,  24,  where  they  follow  the  A.  V. 

.25.  "Is  it  I,  Rabbi?"  for  "Master,  is  it  I?"  But  see 
"Save,  Lord,"   viii.   25.     "  Hast  said"  =  frVa?. 

26,  27.  "He"  inserted  before  "gave"  in  26  but  not  in  27. 
"  A  cup"  for  "the  cup."  Their  text  omits  the  article.  But 
is  any  article  needed  in  the  Greek  phrase  ?  See  verses  74 
and  75. 

28.  "Is  shed,"  not  "is  being  shed."  Cf.  Acts  ii.  47  and 
2  Cor.  ii.  15,  etc.  "Unto  remission  of  sins"  for  "  For  the 
remission  of  sins"  =  ez?  aqjsffiv  dfi.  But  at  Luke  i.  77, 
they  render  iv  dcpeffei  "  in  the  remission;"  and  see  verse 
45,  "  unto  the  hands"  =  f/?  jf/pa-;. 

37.   "  Sore  troubled"    for  ^^  xery  heavy"  =  adyfiovslv.  {}) 

43.  "  Heavy"  ==  fiEfiaprifx^voi  =  "  weighed  down." 

44  and  42.  "A  second  time,"  "a  third"  for  "the"  etc. 
O  faithfulness  !  How  many  second  and  third  times  were 
there?     But  see  Mark  xiv.  72  and  Acts  x.  15. 


42  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

45.   "  Unto"  for  "  into"  =  £/=.  (?)     And  how  important! 

50.  "Laid  hands,"  raS  x^~^P^^  '  but  at  45  "unto  the 
hands,"  x^^P^^  •  ^^d  at  verse  51  "his  hand,"  ryv  x^ipoc. 
Why  not  say  here  "their  hands"  and  be  exact  and  consist- 
ent— and  correct  the  A.  V.  at  the  same  time? 

52.  "With"  =  iv :  and  "the"  is  inserted  twice  with 
"  sword." 

56.  "  Is  come  to  pass."     Misleading.'' 

64  and  39.  "  Nevertheless"  =  nXijv,  This  particle  seems 
to  have  been  a  special  exercise  to  the  faithful  and  conse- 
quential ingenuity  of  the  Revisers.  It  is  used  in  the  N.  T. 
about  thirty  times,  and  they  have  corrected  the  A.  V.  fifteen 
times.  In  Matt.  xi.  22,  34  ;  Luke  x.  14  ;  xi.  41  ;  xii.  31  ;  xix. 
27,  and  Rev.  ii.  25,  they  put  "  howbeit' '  for  "  but ;"  in  Luke 
X.  II,  20,  and  Phil.  iv.  14,  they  put  "howbeit"  for '"  not- 
withstanding ;"  in  Luke  xiii.  t,t„  xviii.  8,  and  i  Cor.  xi.  11, 
they  put  "  howbeit"  for  "  nevertheless ;"  in  Phil.  i.  18;  iii. 
]6,  they  put  "  only"  for  "  nevertheless  ;"  in  Luke  xxii.  42  ; 
Eph,  V,  33,  as  here  in  Matt.  xxvi.  39,  64,  they  have  suffered 
"nevertheless"  to  remain.  In  Matt.  xi.  22,  24,  where  they 
put  "howbeit"  for  "  but,"  the  phrase  in  the  Greek  is  the 
very  same  as  here,  where  the  "  nevertheless"  is  retained, 
viz.,  nXrjv  Xtyoo  vf-uv.  Now,  as  far  as  the  sense  is  con- 
cerned, it  could  make  no  real  difference  whether  "  but"  or 
"howbeit,"  or  "  notwithstanding,"  or  "nevertheless"  were 
used — "  nevertheless"  is  one  of  the  most  clumsy — ;  and  if 
they  had  used  the  simple  "but"  (or  "  yet,"  or  "and  yet") 
in  all  cases  it  might  have  been  well.  But  they  seem  to 
have  had  a  special  fancy  for  the  antiquated  "howbeit," 
which  the  A.  V.  has  never  used  as  the  translation  of  7t\)}v : 
and — for  consistency's  sake  and  consequential  faithfulness 
— have  retained  all  the  others  in  different  places,  except 
"  notwithstanding."  Where  they  put  "  only"  for  "  neverthe- 
less," "  but"  would  have  done  as  well,  or  "nevertheless" 
might  have  been  left,  as  here. 

65.  "Hath  spoken,"  "have  heard,"  for  aorists. 

74,  75.  "  The  cock  crew."  No  article  in  the  Greek.  Why 
did  they  not  say  :  "  a  cock  crew  ;"  as,  "  he  took  a  cup,"  at 
verse  27.' 


ST.   MATTHEW.  43 

XXVII. 

7.  "  Strangers"  =  roi?  Sevoi?.  (article?)  "With  them"== 
ei;  avToov. 

8.  "  The  field  of  blood  ;''  aypoi.  See  Acts  xvii.  23  and 
Mark  iii,  17. 

14.  "  He  gave  him  no  answer,  not  even  to  a  word"  for 
"  he  answered  him  to  never  a  word"  =  ovh  aTrsxpi^jj  avrc^ 
Ttpo?  ovS^  ev  pr/jua.  (?) 

"  15.  "  At  the  feast' '  (marg.  "  a")  =  Hard  ioprj-jv.  Why 
not  say,  "  at  feast  time" — if  we  must  split  hairs  about  arti- 
cles, or  may  insert  anything  whatever  except  only  an  article  ? 
See  Gal.  ii.  20. 

17.  "When  therefore"  for  "  therefore  when."  But  which 
is  most  logical  in  English  ?  Do  they  think  to  express  any 
difference  in  the  sense  ? 

18.  "  Had  delivered"  ^  napkSojnav  :\(),  "  have  suffered" 

=  ETta'^OV. 

24.  "See  ye  to  it"  =oip£(jBe  =  ^^  ye  shall  see  to  it."   (?) 

26.  "  Jesus  he  scourged  and  delivered"  for  "  when  he  had 
scourged  Jesus,  he  delivered  him."  =  rov  6^  h](j.  (ppocyEk- 
Xc^Gai  napidoonev.  Which  has  the  right  air  and  tone .'' 
See  verses  50  and  54. 

27.  29.  "Kneeled  down"  for  "bowed  the  knee"  ^=  yo- 
WTterifGavre?.  "  To  kneel"  is  "to  bow  the  knee,"  or  "to 
fall  upon  the  knees."  Whence  comes  the  added  "down"  ? 
It  is  a  curious  illustration  of  punctilious  faithfulness  and 
consistency  in  correcting  the  A.  V.  that  at  Matt.  xvii.  14 
they  put  "kneeling"  for  "kneeling  down;"  at  Mark  i.  40 
they  retain  "kneeled  down  ;"  and  at  Mark  x.  17  they  have 
simply  "  kneeled  ;"  and  all  for  the  same  Greek  word,  yovv- 
Tisreoo. 

33.  "The  place  of  a  skull"  for  "a  place,"  etc.  Right,  but 
remarkable.  No  article  in  Greek.  Suppose  the  A.  V.  had 
said  "the  place,"  what  would  they  have  done?  It  is  true 
they  have  left  -'the  field"  at  verse  8 ;  but  see  Mark  iii.  17. 
43.  "  Desireth' '  for  "  will  have"  ==  3fAfz.  (?) 
45.  "There  was"  =  fy^Vfro.  Why  not  "there  came, 
arose,  or  followed"?     See  verse  24;  Rev.  xi.  15,  etc. 


44  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

46.  "  Loud"  =  /xsydXj].  But  see  Rev.  v.  2,  12  ;  viii.  13; 
xiv.  7,  9,  15  ;  where  "  loud"  is  faithfully  changed  to  "  great." 
"  Hast  forsaken,"  aorist. 

49.  "  Cometli"  for  "will  come."  The  sense  is  undoubt- 
edly future  though  the  tense  is  present. 

52.  "Were  raised"  for  '' arose"  =?}yip^7/.  But  see 
verses  6;^  and  64,  etc.,  etc. 

54,  Compare  the  construction  with  verses  50  and  26. 
"  The  things  that  were  done' '  =  td  y€voj.ieva — not  "  the 
things  that  came  to  pass."     But  see  xxviii.  11. 

Marg.  "A  son  of  God."  There  seems  no  occasion  for 
this  marginal  reading.  It  is  not  called  for  by  the  rule  of 
the  Greek  article  ;  see  verse  43,  etc.,  etc.  And  as  to  the  cen- 
turion being  a  heathen,  it  is  not  certain  that  he  was  not  like 
the  centurion  of  Matt.  viii.  5-10  and  Acts  x. ;  and  it  is  prob- 
able that  he  knew  about  the  claims  of  Jesus  from  the  Jew- 
ish point  of  view,  for  most  likely  he  was  with  Pilate,  and 
had  heard  the  charge  made  by  the  Jews  before  Pilate :  "  We 
have  a  law  and  by  our  law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made 
himself  the  Son  of  God  ;"  at  which  words  Pilate,  who  before 
had  been  startled  by  the  message  from  his  wife,  was  the 
more  afraid.  But,  finally,  if  the  centurion  must  be  sup- 
posed to  speak  from  the  purely  heathen  point  of  view,  his 
exclamation  should  be  translated,  not  "a  son  of  God,"  but 
"the  son  of  a  god."  The  Revisers  might  suggest,  "  a  son 
of  a  god,"  or  "a  god's  son;"  but  these  expressions  are 
forced  and  artificial,  and  foreign  to  the  English  idiom,  or,  at 
least,  very  unnatural  and  unusual. 

63.  "We  remember,"  aorist.  "I  rise  again"  for  "I  will 
rise  again;"  but  the  sense  is  undoubtedly  future. 

XXVIII. 

1.  "To  see"  =  S-fcapv^a-z— not  "behold."  4.  "Quake" 
for  "shake."  (?) 

6,  7.  "  Is  risen"  ==  ?/yepSr^  — not  "  was  raised." 

9.  "Took  hold  of  his  feet"  for  "held  him  by  llic  feet" 
=eHpdT?^(jev  (xinov  rov?  rroda?.  Note  the  proj)er  force 
of  the  verb.     Was  this  change  required.'' 

14.  "  Rid  you  of  care"  for  "  secure  you." 


ST.  MARK.  45 

18.  "Came  to  them  and  spake  unto  them"  for  "came 
and  spake  unto  them"  ==  TrpoffeX^cov  eXdXjjffsv  avroU. 
But  see  iv.  3,  where  they  correct  the  A.  V.  by  putting 
"came"  for  "came  to  him"  as  a  translation  of  the  same 
Greek  word  in  the  same  construction. 

"  Authority"  for  "  power"  =  e^'ofO'/a: ;  but  at  Mark  ii.  10 
they  render  "  power." 

"  Hath  been  given"  for  "  is  given"  =  eSo^rj.  (?) 

19.  "  Make  disciples  of  all  the  nations"  for  "teach  all  na- 
tions." "  All  the  nations"  cannot  differ  much  in  sense  from 
"all  nations;"  only  in  form  it  brings  out  more  sensibly  the 
incongruity  with  "  making  disciples." 

"  Baptizing  into  the  name,"  ei?  to  oropia.  But  at  x.  41. 
they  render  ei?   ovopia   "  in  the  name ;"  and  see  i  Cor.  x.  2. 

20.  "  Commanded"  for  "  have  commanded ;"  but  see  verse 
16,  "had  appointed" — both  for  aorists.  If  an  aorist  be- 
comes pluperfect  after  another  aorist,  why  should  it  not  be- 
come perfect  after  a  present  tense  ?  Besides,  "  commanded" 
would  seem  to  refer  to  some  particular,  though  indefinite, 
time.  Can  we  suppose  our  Lord  to  have  had  in  mind  any 
such  reference  ?  We  must  read  from  his  point  of  view,  and 
not  from  our  present  position.  Cf.  Luke  xxiv.  44;  but  the 
limitation  of  time  there  expressed  is  not  expressed  here, 
and  what  right  have  we  to  presume  it  to  be  implied  .''  See 
Acts  i.  2. 

ST.   MARK. 
I. 

4.  Why  is  "the"  retained  before  "  baptism"  and  omitted 
before  "  remission"  ?  Which  required  the  change,  faith- 
fulness to  the  English  or  to  the  Greek .''  Cf.  Luke  i.  77 
and  Acts  ii.  38,  And  as  to  the  "unto"  for  "for,"  the  A.V. 
put  "unto"  in  the  margin;  but  "for"  is  the  settled  Eng- 
lish use,  as  see  the  Nicene  Creed  ;  and  compare  "the  king- 
dom of  heaven." 

6.  "  Had"  inserted  for  "  with."  The  A.V.  is  literal  and 
correct.  For  the  construction  of  participles  with  the  verb 
*'to  be,"  compare  xiii.  25,  and  compare  the  latter  with 
Matt.  xxiv.  29. 


46  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

8.  "  Baptized"  for"  have  baptized;"— but  compare  verse 
II,  and  I  Cor.   ix.  15  ;  Col.  iv.  8;  Philem.  19,  21,  etc.,  etc. 

11.  "Out  of  the  heavens"  for  "from  heaven"  =  £«  rcbv 
ovpavcav:  but  compare  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  "king- 
dom of  heaven,"  tcdv  ovp-:  also  John  iii.  31  ;  1  Thess.  i. 
10;  Rev.  X.  4,  xiv.  13,  etc.;  where  we  have  "in  heaven" 
=  fV  ToH  ovp.  (as  commonly  elsewhere);  and  "from 
heaven"  =  €h  tqjv  ovp.^  "  cometh  from  heaven  ;"  and  "a 
voice  from  heaven,"  sk  tov  ovp. — not  "  out  of  heaven." 

35.  The  participial  construction  of  the  A.  V.  wantonly 
changed. 

37.  "Are  seeking"  for  "seek."  But  why  not  the  same 
change  at  iii.  32,  if  faithfulness  required  it  here  ? 

II. 

ID.  "  Power"  ==  iSovffiav  :  changed  to  "authority" 
at  iii.  15,  and  so,  generally.  But  cf.  Luke  v.  24;  xii.  5; 
John  X.  18  ;  xix.  10,  11;  Acts  v.  4;  viii.  19;  Rom.  xiii.  i, 
2,  3;  and  particularly  Luke  xxii.  53;  Acts  xxvi.  iS;  1 
Cor.  vii.  37. 

12.  "  Amazed"  =  e^lfftaff^ai  : — but  another  verb  is 
translated  "amazed"  at  i.  27;  and  this  verb  is  translated 
"is  beside  himself"  at  iii.  21. 

17.  "A"  for  "the ;"  and  what's  the  difference?  "The 
righteous"  has  no  article  in  the  Greek. 

26.  "Gave  also  to  them,"  should  be,  if  they  wi//  split 
hairs,  "gave  to  them  also" — their  rule  being,  apparently, 
to  put  "also"  after  the  word  Avhich  in  Greek  follows  the 
j{ni.  28.  "Even"  for  "also."  (?)  At  iii.  19,  o?  xai  is  ren- 
dered "  who  also." 

III. 

1,3.  "  His"  is  put  twice  for  the  article  only,  unneces- 
sarily. Indeed  "a  hand"  was  as  near  the  sense  as  "his 
hand;"  it  was  one  of  the  man's  hands. 

9.  "  Lest"  =  iv(y  jxi) : — but  see  Col.  iii.  21. 

10.  Here  the  A.  V.  follows  the  Greek  order;  and  does  it 
not  give  the  sense,  and  is  it  not  good  English?  Compare 
the  painful  transpositions  of  the  Revisers  at  v.  15,  in  order 


ST.  MARK.  47 

to  conform  to  the  Greek  construction.  And  as  to  "that 
they  miglit  touch"  for  "to  touch"  =  iva  arpcovrai,  com- 
pare their  own  translation  at  iv.  21,  where  "to  be  put"  = 
IV a  rs^fj ! 

15.  "  Devils"  ==  ra  daijdoyia.  But  see  verse  22,  and 
"the  mountain"  at  verse  13;  and  vi.  7. 

17.  "Them  he  surnamed"  for  "he  surnamed  them." 
The  A.  V.  follows  the  order  of  the  Greek.  Cf.  Rev.  viii. 
2.  "Sons"  for  "the  sons;" — indifferent,  but  see  Matt. 
xxvii.  34. 

25.  "Will  not  be  able"  for  '' c3innoi"=Svv7']Gsrai  : — 
so  also  at  viii.  4.  But  "  cannot"  in  English  is  either  present 
or  future;  and  "  will  not  be  able"  looks  as  if  not  only  a 
different  tense  but  a  different  verb  were  used  in  the  Greek. 
See  Luke  xvi.  2  ;  where  "can"  is  for  the  future. 

26.  "  Hath  risen  up"  for  "  rise  up"  =  dvafftt].  If 
avlGxt]  must  be  "  hath  risen, up,"  then  surely  sfxepia^rj  (al- 
though displacing  ixEUFpiffrai)  should  be  "hath  been  di- 
vided." But  better  say,  "is  risen  up"  (or  "  riseth  up"), 
and  "  is  divided."  Both  forms  represent  the  perfect  in 
English. 

IV. 

12.  ftXinoo  =  "  see,"  and  iS(i)v  ="  perceive." 

16.  "Are  sown,"  not  "  are  being  sown"  =  o';rfzpo^fvoz. 
Cf.  Acts  ii.  47;  2  Cor.  ii.  15.  And  compare  "  the  sower" 
=  6  GTteipGov,  verse  14,  with  "  seed"  =  tor  ffTTopov,  verse 
26 ;  and  with  o  Hatt^yopc^v,  o  ^r/Tc^v,  and  Tov  xpivovTa,  at 
John  V.  45  ;  viii.  50  ;  xii.  48.  With  these  last  compare  "  There 
shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing,"  and  especially  Mark 
i.  7,  "  there  cometh  he  that  is  mightier  than  I," 

19.  "  Entering  in,"  not  "  going  in"  =  eiff7ropsvo/-i€vai^ 
not  si(j8px6).ievai  :  see  vii.  15-20.  21.  "  Is  brought"  = 
e'pX^tai. 

28.  Three  articles  inserted.  What  prevented  their  say- 
ing, "  first  a  blade,  then    an  ear,  then  full  corn  in  the  ear"? 

34.  Change  of  order  needless ;  see  the  displacement  of 
"  he  saith  unto  them,"  in  verse  35. 

37.    "  Insomuch  that"  for  "  so  that"  =  GoatS.     But  why  ? 


48  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE  REVISION: 

Here  is  another  of  the  Greek  particles  which  seems  to  have 
sorely  exercised  the  hypercritical  faithfulness  of  the  Revi- 
sers. They  have  changed  its  rendering  from  "  therefore"' 
to  "wherefore"  at  i  Cor.  iii.  31 ;  iv.  5  ;  v.  8;  xv.  58  ;  2  Cor. 
v.  17,  and  Phil.  iv.  i.  But  they  have  admitted  that  it  may 
be  translated  "therefore"  by  retaining  that  rendering  at 
Rom.  xiii.  2  ;  and  will  they  tell  us  the  faithful  difference 
in  any  of  these  cases  between  "therefore"  and  "where- 
fore"? They  have  changed  "wherefore"  to  "so  that," 
at  Matt.  xix.  6;  Rom.  vii.  13;  Gal.  iii.  24  ;  iv.  7  ;  and  to 
"  so  then"  at  Phil.  ii.  12  ;  and  "  so  then"  to  "  so  that"  at 
Mark  x.  8.  They  have  changed  "  insomuch  that"  to  "  so 
that"  at  Mark  ii.  2,  but  "so  that"  to  "insomuch  that" 
at  XV.  5  and  at  Acts  xix.  12,  retaining  "  so  that"  at  verses 
10  and  16.  But  Luther,  the  Vulgate,  and  the  whole  Eng- 
lish Hexapla  render  ooars  in  this  verse  12  just  as  they  do  in 
verses  10  and  16  ;  and,  with  on,e  or  two  exceptions,  they  all 
disagree  with  all  the  changes  here  made  by  the  Revisers. 
Now  no  new  lights  of  Greek  grammar  or  lexicography  can 
be  appealed  to  in  defence  of  these  changes  ;  for  the  same 
Greek  word  is  used  throughout  and  in  the  same  connection, 
i.e.,  with  the  indicative  mode.  All  the  renderings  of  the 
A.  V.  are  retained  by  the  Revisers,  only  they  are  differently 
distributed,  and  the  most  cumbrous  and  obsolescent — "  in- 
somuch that" — is  here  introduced,  and  so  multiplied.  The 
right  distribution  must  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  each 
case,  by  the  context,  and  the  propriety  of  English  expression 
under  the  circumstances  ;  and  of  these  particulars  any  intel- 
ligent English  reader  may  be  as  good  a  judge  as  the  ripest 
Greek  scholar.  To  such  readers  we  cheerfully  leave  the 
judgment.  But  if  any  authority  must  be  appealed  to  on 
these  points,  we  humbly  venture  to  set  not  only  that  of  the 
translators  of  161 1,  but  that  of  the  Vulgate,  of  Luther,  and 
of  the  whole  English  Hexapla,  against  that  of  the  Revisers. 
It  is  not  a  question  of  Greek  scholarship,  but  of  good  com- 
mon-sense. This  may  serve  as  a  sample  of  the  petty,  if  not 
wanton,  changes,  whose  constant  recurrence  and  vast  mul- 
titude constitute  our  chief  ground  of  complaint  against  the 
Late  Revision.      The  worst  of  it   is,  they  undermine   our 


ST.  MARK.  49 

confidence  in  the  judiciousness  of  really  important  altera- 
tions. 

V. 

4.  "Had  strength"  for  "  could"  =  z'cjff.  So  at  ix. 
18  and  Luke  xx.  26,  "  were  not  able"  for  "  could  ;"  and  at 
Luke  xvi,  3,  "have  not  strength"  for  "can,"  The  Eng- 
lish reader  can  judge  whether  these  changes  are  required  for 
the  sense  ;  for,  that  the  Greek  word  does  not  require  them 
will  be  seen  by  referring  to  Matt.  viii.  28  ;  xxvi.  40  ;  Mark 
xiv.  37  ;  and  Acts  xxv.  7,  where  they  render  this  verb  by 
"could  ;"   and  Phil.  iv.  13,  where  they  render  it  by  "can." 

15.  "Behold"  for  "  see"  =  3f  <i9poz)(J'z  ;  and  so  at  verse 
38  and  at  iii.  11,  and  often  elsewhere.  But  see  Matt,  xxviii. 
I  ;  John  ix.  S  ;  etc.  "  Even  him  that  had"  =  xov  £0-^;;Kora'. 
For  this  laborious  construction,  compare  the  "  daily  bread" 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Matt.  xvii.  5.  But  rov  iaxTinora 
is  rendered  "him  that  had"— not  "had  had" — in  the  same 
tense  with  rov  Saifxovi8,6fX£vov=''''  him  that  was  possessed;' ' 
unless  the  latter  is  conceived — as  indeed  it  may,  if  not  must, 
be — in  the  pluperfect  tense  ;  in  which  case  the  present  par- 
ticiple is  rendered  as  pluperfect,  while  the  perfect  parti- 
ciple, in  precisely  the  same  construction,  is  rendered  as  a 
simple  preterite !  Had  the  man  the  legion  still  ?  Now  rov 
i'xovra^  in  this  connection,  as  being  governed  by  a  preterite 
verb,  would  mean  "him  that  had  ;"  shall  we  put  the  same 
for  rov  s^xv^^ra"^  In  Rom.  vi.  7,  an  aorist  participle  is 
rendered  as  a  perfect,  "  he  that  hath  died  ;"  and  here  a  per- 
fect is  rendered  as  a  simple  preterite,  and  that  when  thrown 
into  a  time  antecedent  to  the  preterite  verb  that  governs  it ! 
This  passage  must  evidently  have  been  thoroughly  studied, 
as  it  is  so  carefully  reconstructed.  And  observe  rov  6ai- 
IAOvi8,6fxevov  is  not  rendered  "him  that  was  being  pos- 
sessed ;"  as  see  Acts  ii.  47,  etc.     For  tenses  cf.  Acts  iv.  13. 

19.  Aorist  and  perfect  coordinated  ;  and  both  should  be 
rendered  perfect. 

39,  40,  41.  Here  we  have  three  aorist  participles,  and  each 
followed  by  the  present  indicative, — one  rendered  by  *'  when 
he  was  entered  in,"  another  by  "  having  put  them  all  out," 
and  the   third  by  "taking."     Why  this  change  of   tense.' 


50  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

And  as  for  the  variety  of  construction,  see  "mad,"  "  mad- 
ness," "mad;"  "subject,"  "subjected,"  "subject;"  Acts 
xxvi.  24,  25  ;   I  Cor.  XV.  27,  28. 

VI. 

7.  An  imperfect  and  an  aorist  are  coordinated,  and  botli 
translated  by  the  preterite.  Is  this  the  reason  for  twice  in- 
serting "  lie"  .''     Amazing  faithfulness  !     See  verse  13. 

9.  "To  go"  inserted  for  "be;"  but  the  A.  V.  is  the 
simpler.     There  is  no  "go"  in  the  context. 

13.  Here  all  three  imperfects  are  rendered  preterites  ;  and 
"they"  is  not  repeated. 

14.  "Had  become"  for  "  was"  ==  fy^Vfro.  "Is  risen" 
=  avtGTt].     "  These"  =  ai. 

16.  "  But  Herod,  when  he  heard  thereof,  said,"  for  "  But 
when  Herod  heard  thereof  he  said"  =  auovGa^  6h  o 
'Hpoj6j]<^  i'Xeysv.  How  important  !  But  see  xv.  39  ;  Matt, 
ix.  8,  12,  etc.  "  He  is  risen"  =  yyfp^i]  : — not  "is  raised" 
nor  "was  raised;"  but  see  xiv.  28;  and  Matt.  xxvi.  33; 
etc.,  etc. 

17.  Pluperfects  for  aorists  right  through  ;  but,  18,  "said" 
for  "had  said."  Is  not  the  A.  V.  right.''  Common-sense, 
and  not  the  Greek  grammar,  must  decide. 

19.  "Set  herself  against"  for  "had  a  quarrel  against" 
=  eVffjt^fr  ?  "Grudge"  might,  perhaps,  have  been  better 
than  "  quarrel."  "  Desired"  for  "  would  have"  =  y^eXev. 
But  see  verses  26  and  48,  and  Matt.  xiv.  5. 

23.  "The  half."  No  article  in  the  Greek.  This  is  a 
good  illustration  of  idiom. 

34.  For  change  of  construction,  see  v.  39.  "  Hath  com- 
passion" for  "  was  moved  with  compassion  ;"  see  Matt.  xiv. 
14,  note. 

56.  "He  Qnicred"  =  elciTropEv era  :  imperfect;  but  see 
vii.  15,  "going  into"  for  "  entering  into."  "  The  country," 
— no  article  in  the  Greek  nor  in  the  A.  V. 

VII. 
7.   "The  precepts."     No  article  in  the  Greek,  and  none 
needed  in  the  English. 


ST.  MARK.  51 

II.  "  Mightest  have  been"  for  "  mightest  be"  =  cocpEiki)- 
S-/;/?  ;  also  "given"  for  "  gift"  ?  See  also  Matt.  xv.  5,  and 
note. 

15-20.  "Going  into"  for  "entering  into;"  but  see  vi. 
56;  iv.  19;  etc.  "Goethout,"  but  in  15  and  20  "proceed- 
eth  out," — all  from  €K7topsvojj.ai.  But  see  "  mad,  madness, 
mad,"  Acts  xxvi.  24,  25.     And  see  Matt,  xxiii.  13. 

VIII. 

I.  Change  of  construction  entirely  unnecessary  ;  in 
English,  as  in  Greek,  "great"  is  here  of  course  in  the  sin- 
gular number,  and  "  having"  in  the  plural,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case. 

4.  "  Shall  be  able"  for  "can  ;"  see  iii.  24,  25,  also  Luke 
xvi.  2.  "In  a  desert  place"  for  "in  the  wilderness;"  see 
2  Cor.  xi.  26. 

24.   "  I  see  men"  =  rov?  arSrpojTtov?. 

31.   "  By"  for  "  of"  =  vtto  :  but  see  xiii.  13. 

33.  "Turning  about"  for  "when  he  had  turned  about" 
=  err  Iff  T  pa  (pel?.  But  at  verses  6  and  7  it  is  "  having  given 
thanks"  for  "  gave  thanks  and"  ==  evxocpiGTyffa'i:  and 
"  having  blessed"  for  "blessed  and"  =  evXoyt/ffa?:  while 
at  xiv.  22,23  ^^  ^s  "when  he  had  blessed"  for"  blessed  and" 
=  evXoyTjffa'^,  and  "when  he  had  given  thanks"  =  evx<x- 
piffrr/ffa?.     See  xiv.  22,  note. 

34)35-  "Would"  for  "  will"  =  S^f'Afz,  BeXyj.  Compare 
vi.  19,  26,  48. 

38.  For  the  change  of  construction,  compare  iii.  17. 

IX. 

I.  "There  be  some  here  of  them  that  stand  Ac"  for 
"There  be  some  of  those  standing  here."  This  elaborate 
change  is  made  because  the  position  of  cbSs  in  the  text  had 
been  changed  from  rc^v  a)S€  to  cods  rc^v.  But  does  not 
the  insertion  of  "  by"  make  a  bald  tautology  ?  And  for  the 
place  of  c^Ss  note  the  construction  of  viii.  4.  But  ah  ! 
revising  faithfulness  !     Mint,  anise,  and  cummin  ! 

13.  "  Have  done"  ==  CTroufffav,  coordinated  with  a  per- 
fect ;  but  it  might  have  been  rendered  by  the  preterite,  as  if 


52  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

contradistinguished  from  the  accompanying  perfect,  as  well 
as  any  of  the  aorists  in  John  xvii.  ;  and  before  at  v.  19. 

17.  "I  have  brought"  =i^vayKa. 

18.  "  Were  not  able"  for  "  could  not ;" — what's  the  faith- 
ful difference  ?  But,  it  may  be  said,  the  Greek  is  zcrjf  crar 
and  not  r^dvvavro  :  then  see  Luke  viii.  43,  etc.  And  see 
verse  28,  showing  that  the  meaning  of  the  two  verbs  is  the 
same. 

22.    "  Hath  cast"  =  i'ftaXs. 

29.  "  Is  dead"  =  ani^avs.  For  the  change  of  construc- 
tion, compare  Matt.  xxvi.  26.  Could  faithfulness  require 
the  change  in  one  place  and  not  in  the  other  ?  and  if  so,  in 
which  was  the  greater  faithfulness  required  ? 

39.  "  By"  =  eV,  twice.     Why  did  they  not  say  "  in"  } 

33.  "When  he  was  in  the  house"  for  "being  in  the 
house"  =  iv  rrj  oiuia  ysvojuevo?.  How  is  the  A.  V.  to  es- 
cape castigation  ?  If  it  has  the  Latin  construction,  the  par- 
ticipial is  substituted,  see  verse  26  and  viii.  33  ; — and  if  it 
has  the  participial  construction,  the  Latin  circumlocution 
must  take  its  place.  For  rendering  the  aorist  participle 
here  as  present,  see  again  viii.  33,  etc.,  etc. 

34.  Note'  that  dieXix^V^^'^  after  yap  is  rendered  by  a 
pluperfect;  and  ^eiS,ooy  is  rendered  "the  greatest." 

41.  "  In  no  wise"  for  "  not"  =  ov  fxrf.     But  see  xiv.  31. 

42  "Were"  for  "  is"  =s(}Tiv,  in  the  simple  direct  indic- 
ative. Then,  "were  hanged"  is  for  an  indicative  present 
with  "if,"  and  "were  cast,"  in  the  same  construction,  for 
an  indicative  perfect.  This  may  all  be  very  well ;  but  see 
the  construction  "  it  is  better"  in  the  following  verses,  with 
the  aorist  infinitives  all  rendered  present.  And  then  what 
has  become  of  faithfulness  to  the  original  ?  See  verse  i  ; 
xi.  24,  etc. 

X. 

13.  Is  there  no  "  ancient  authority"  for  "  those  who  brought 
them"  =  roI'S  Trpoffcptpovffiv?  The  words  are  retained  by 
Tischendorf  in  his  eighth  edition.      S.  and  V.  omit  them. 

15.  "  In  no  wise"  for  "  not"  =  ov  /17  ,•  unnecessary. — see 
Matt.  ;cxiii.  39;  Mark  xiii.  2;  xiv.  31,  etc. 


ST.  MARK.  53 

i8.  '"'■  Even'  for  '•'■that  is."  Faithfulness  to  the  original  ! 
"Save"  for  "but"  =si  jj.rj:  but  cf.  i  Cor.  viii.  4;  and  see 
Luke  iv.  26,  27;  Rev.  ii.  17;  Matt.  v.  13;  xii.  24;  xv.  24, 
etc.,  where  they  as  faithfully  put  "but"  for  *'  save." 

25.  *'  A  needle's  eye,"  again,  for  "  the  eye  of  a  needle." 
See  Matt.  xix.  24,  note. 

26.  "  Then  who"  for  "  who  then."     The  difference  ? 

27.  Another  change  of  construction  which  utterly  ruins 
the  rhythm.  As  to  the  Greek  order,  see  their  own  construc- 
tion at  iii.  17,  and  Matt.  xxii.  21. 

51.  "  What  wilt  thou  ?' '  But  at  verse  36  it  is  "  what  would 
ye?"  The  Revisers,  after  all,  are  no  more  consistent  than 
the  A.  V. 

XI. 

10.  Should  they  not  have  said  *'the  coming  kingdom" 
=  tf  ipxoi-itvi]  fiaoiXeia,  and  saved  the  repetition  of  "  the 
kingdom"  ?     There  is  no  article  with  the  Greek  noun. 

17.  "A  house"  for  "the  house;"  but  it  is  a  predicate, 
and  see  Matt,  xxvii.  33,  etc.  Was  it  to  be  one  of  the  houses 
of  prayer  for  "all  the  nations"  or  "the  house"  of  prayer 
for  them  all }  And  as  for  "  all  the"  for  "  all ;" — in  English 
"all"  is  idiomatically  used  for  "  all  the"  and  "all  those." 
If  this  is  antiquated,  it  is  at  least  as  intelligible  as  "  how- 
beit,"  or  "  straightway,"  or  as  "  save"  for  "  but,"  or  "  or" 
for  "  ere,"  or  *'  which"  for  "  who." 

20.  "  From  the  roots."     No  article  in  the  Greek. 

24.  "  Have  received' '  =  eXd/3sTS.  Why  not  as  well  pres- 
ent as  perfect,  and  avoid  the  apparent  nonsense .?  See  Matt, 
iii.  17. 

32.  "  Verily"  for  "  indeed"  =  orro?;.  (?)  "Tobeaproph- 
et"  for  "  that  he  was  a  prophet"  =  on  TrpogjTjTtj?  rjy. 

XII. 

I.  "A  pit  for  the  winepress"  for  *^  a  place  for  the  winefat" 
=  v7to\i}yiov.  Now  what  was  dug  out  was  certainly 
"a  place  for"  the  apparatus, — whether  it  were  "a  pit"  or 
not;  and  it  was  dug  for  "  the  wine-z^c/, "  the  bottom  of  the 
apparatus,  whether  it  were  for  "  the  w'lne-press"  or  not.  So 
that  the  A.  V.  is  right,   whether  the  Revisers  are  or  not. 


54  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

But  they  are  so  sure  of  their  point  that  they  have  represent- 
ed "pit,"  "press"  and  all,  as  being  expressed  in  the  Greek 
word, 

lo.  "  Have  ye  not  read?"  =  ar»'6y?'(i?r6j  "the  stone,"  "the 
head,"  "the  corner;" — no  articles  in  Greek. 

12.  "  Spake"  for  "  had  spoken."  Wrong,  and  inconsistent ; 
see  vi.  17  ;  ix.  34  ;  and  especially  John  ii.  22  ;  iv.  i  ;  ix.  35,  etc. 

13.  "  That  they  might  catch  him"  for  "to  catch  him"  = 
iVor,  n.r.\.  (?)  Cf.  iv.  21;  xv.  15,  20,  etc.  "In  talk." 
Better,  "with  talk"  (dat.  inst.)  or  "  in  his  talk"  (A.  V.)  ;  or 
"with  their  talk"? 

26.  "  Are  raised"  for  "  rise"  =  iysipovrai :  see  vi.  16. 

27.  Herg  the  Revisers  render  "the  God"  three  times 
where  there  is  no  article  in  their  text ; — the  more  wonderful, 
as  the  article  was  in  the  old  text. 

33.  "  His  neighbour."  Whose  neighbour  ?  This  is  anti- 
quated, and  scarcely  intelligible.  We  now  say  "  one's  neigh- 
bour," in  such  cases. 

;^6.  ''  Footstool  of  thy  feet"  for  "thy  footstool."  This  is 
more  antiquated  than  the  oldest  English. 

38.  "  Desire  to  have"  is  here  put  for  "  will  have,"  adding 
the  "have"  after  all ;  see  Matt,  xxvii.  43. 

39.  "  Chief  seats"  for  "the  chief  seats."  Which  is  the 
natural  idiomatic  English  ?  But  ah  !  the  Greek  article  !  And 
yet  "  at  feasts"  =  ev  roH,  etc. 

43.   "  Superfluity"  for  "abundance."     Superfluous? 

XIII. 

1.  "Behold"  for  "see  =  i'Se.  What  important  distinc- 
tions in  meaning  this  ids  must  embrace,  and  how  the  au- 
thors of  the  A.  V.are  to  be  pitied  for  their  ignorance  in  not 
perceiving  them !  At  Matt.  xxv.  20,  22,  "  lo"  is  put  for 
"behold" as  its  translation,  and  at  John  xx.  27,  "  see"  is  put 
for  "  behold." 

2.  Ov  }.uj  is  twice  rendered  simply  "  not,"  and  so  at  verses 
30  and  31  ;  but  see  ix.  41. 

p.    "  In"  =  fi?  ; — "  in  synagogues  shall  ye  be  beaten." 
12.   "The  brother"  (A.  V.)  here  expresses  the  meaning  of 
the  Greek  as  exactlv  as  "the  father"  of  the  Revisers  does. 


ST.  MARK.  55 

And  what  right  had  they  to  insert  "  his"  (not  italicized)  be- 
fore "  child,"  and  not  before  the  second  "  brother"  ?  So  far 
as  articles  are  concerned,  surely  no  faithfulness  required 
any  change  of  the  A.  V.  in  this  passage. 

14.  "When  ye  see"  for  "when  ye  shall  see"  =  i'drjTS. 
But  verse  7,  "  when  ye  shall  hear"  =  auovGr]rs.  Both 
after  orav  and  with  the  imperative. 

17.  "  Woe  to  them  that  are  with  child."  Of  course  the 
ovai  cannot  be  an  imprecation  here.  In  some  other  cases 
it  might  seem  to  be ;  yet  tlie  Revisers  have  given  it  the  same 
version  always.  Is  this  deciding  a  doubtful  sense  ?  Would 
it  not  have  been  true  and  plainer  to  have  translated  this  ex- 
pression in  all  cases  by  "  alas!"  "alas  for  you  !"  "alas  for 
them  !"  etc. — as  the  A.  V.  has  done  in  the  Revelation,  where 
the  Revisers  have  substituted  "  woe"  for  the  "  alas"  .'' 

20.  "  Would  have  been"  for  "  should  be."  This  may  be 
defended  here,  standing  as  if  all  were  past  and  finished  in 
the  counsel  of  God.  But  in  St.  Matthew  the  tense  is 
future. 

23.  "That  they  may  lead  astray"  for  "to  deceive"  = 
Ttpoi  ro  anonXavav. 

30.  "  Be  accomplished"  for  "  be  done"  =  yiviirai.  See 
the  Lord's  Prayer. 

34.  Why  not  as  well  insert  '■'■  who'^  as  "when"?  And 
what  great  difference  after  all .' 

XIV. 

5.  "  They  murmured,"  for  the  imperfect.  Why  not  "  were 
murmuring"  ?     See  verse  18  and  Luke  ii.  33. 

6,  8,  9.   "  Hath  wrought"  =  aipyaffaro. 

10.  "  That  he  might  deliver  him  up"  for  "  to  betray  him" 
=  i'va,  K.r.X.  (?)  Cf.  iv.  21  ;  xv.  15,  20.  "He  that  was;" 
rather  "  who  was"  simply,  as  if  o  =  o  gov  (which  they,  too, 
seem  to  assume) ;  but  see  their  version  at  xvi.  6  ;  Matt,  xxiii. 
9  ;  Rom.  ix.  5  ;  and  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  "which  art,"  etc., 

etc. 

11.  For  change  of  construction,  compare  Matt.  ix.  12,  22  ; 

xii.  24,  etc. 

12.  "  Of  unleavened  "  =  rc5v  a^vjuaov.     At  verse  i  th^'v 


56  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE  REVISION. 

retain  tlie  article,  and  say  "the  unleavened."  "Make 
ready"  for  "prepare,"  and  so,  at  verse  15,  "ready"  for  "pre- 
pared;" but  see  Luke  ii.  31. 

iS.  ^^  Even  he  that  eateth"  for  "  which  eateth"==  o  effS-loov: 
and  so,  verse  20,  "he  that  dippeth"  for  "that  dippeth." 
But,  the  verbs  being  in  the  singular  in  English,  the  exact 
sense  is  secured  without  these  cvuubrous  insertions. 

22.  "Took  bread,  and,  when  he  had  blessed,  he  brake" 
for  "  took  bread  and  blessed  and  brake"  =  Xcx(3cov  aprov 
ev'SoyijGLXi  ^uXaffe.  A  similar  change  is  made  in  St.  Luke, 
where  tlie  Greek  construction  is  the  same.  But  in  St.  Mat- 
thew the  Revisers  leave  it,  "Took  bread  and  blessed  and 
brake."  Wherefore,  then,  this  change  here  in  St.  Mark.^  Is 
it,  perchance,  because  here  there  is  no  uai  before  svXo- 
yZ/ffa??  This  is  making  a  very  nice  distinction,  which,  if 
thrust  into  such  a  formula  as  this,  should  be  faithfully  ad- 
hered to  elsewhere.  But  see  xv.  i,  where,  zviihout  nai,  they 
say  "held,  and  bound,  and  carried;"  while,  at  Matt,  xxvii. 
I,  with  Kai,  they  say  again,  "took;  and  they  bound,  and 
led"  for  "took:  and,  when  they  had  bound,  they  led." 
Verily,  they  are  hard  to  please ;  or,  they  find  it  difficult  to 
keep  their  split  hairs  steadily  in  the  focus.  In  i  Cor.  xi. 
23,  24,  the  construction  is  different  ;  the  wa/ there  connects 
verbs  and  not  participles.      See  viii.  33,  note. 

"Take  ye"  for  "take"  =  Xafters.  But  see  xii.  35, 
where  they  faithfully  put  "  watch"  for  "  watch  ye,"  because 
there  is  no  vpisii  in  the  Greek.  Do  they  recognize  that 
euphony  or  rhythm  has  any  rights  in  a  translation  ?  Then 
they  must  elsewhere  be  judged  accordingly. 

28.  "Raised  up"  for  "risen"  ==  eyspSyvai.  But  see 
vi.  16;  Matt.  xvi.  2  ;  xxvii.  64,  etc.,  etc.,  especiall}'  in  the 
middle  forms. 

30.  Here  they  put  "  thou' '  just  where  it  stands  in  their  new 
Greek  text,  whatever  may  happen  to  the  English.  If  there 
is  so  much  virtue  in  the  Greek  order,  why  did  they  not  faith- 
fully translate:  "Thou,  before  twice  a  cock  crow,  thrice 
shalt  deny  me"  ? 

31.  "  Not"  for  "  not  in  any  wise"  =  ot>  }.ir].  But  see  ix. 
41  ;  xvi.   18,  etc.,  etc.     Alas  for  the  poor  A.  V.  !     How  it 


ST.  MARK.  57 

infallibly  blunders,  whichever  way  it  turns  !  If  it  says  "  not 
in  any  wise,"  it  should  be  "  not;"  and  if  it  says  "  not,"  it 
should  be  "in  no  wise." 

33.  "  Sore  troubled"  for  "  very  heavy"  =  adi]fA.ovsiy.  (?) 
Cf.  John  xi.  33  ;   xii.  37. 

36.  "  Howbeit"  for  "  nevertheless"  ==  orAAa  ,-  elsewhere 
for  TtXy'jv  : — better,  simply  "but"  or  "yet." 

54.  "  Had  followed"  for  "  followed"  =  iptokov^iiaav. 
Note  that  this  is  direct  narrative.     Cf.  John  xviii.  34. 

56,  57.   "  Bare  false  witness,"  twice,  for  the  imperfect. 

64.   "  Ye  have  heard"  =  ijKOVGaTe. 

6'j.  "  The  Nazarene,  cve7t  Jesus,"  for  "Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth ;" — harsh  and  unnecessary  ;  see  "  daily  bread." 

72,  "  The  second  time"  =  eu  dEvrlpov.  But  see  "  a 
second,"  "  a  third,"  at  Matt.  xxvi.  42,  44. 

XV. 

4.  "  Again"  is  here  faithfully  transposed  into  the  Greek 
order  ;  but  it  is  (unfaithfully?)  left  at  verse  13  in  the  Eng- 
lish order,  contrary  to  the  Greek.  Who  can  measure  the 
unspeakable  faithfulness  which  required  the  substitution 
of  "  Pilate  again  answered  him"  for  "  Pilate  answered  him 
again"  ? 

5.  "  Insomuch  that"  for  "  so  that  ;"   see  iv.  37,  note. 

15.  "Wishing"  for  "  willing"  = /JofAo'/^ero?.  (?)  And 
see  a  similar  change  for  ^iXcov  at  Acts  xxiv.  37. 

19.  Imperfects  disregarded.  But  see  the  pains  the  Re- 
visers took  at  Matt.  iii.  14.  Might  they  not  have  succeeded 
with  as  little  circumlocution  here  ?  These  imperfects  are 
immediately  preceded  and  followed  by  aorists,  and  ought 
they  not  to  be  distinguished  ?  See  John  xvii. ;  and  see  Mark 
xvi.  3  ;  Luke  i.  33. 

37.  "  Gave  up  the  ghost"  =  eStnvevffsv.  At  Matt, 
xxvii.  50  they  have  "yielded  up  his  spirit"  for  "yielded 
up  the  ghost"  =  cxcpr}KSv  to  TTvsv/xa.  How  can  "ghost" 
be  got  out  of  iBinvEvaB,  if  it  is  not  found  in  nvsvjja  ? 

40.    "  Beholding"  for  "  looking  on"  =  Bscopovffai.  (?) 
43.   "Of   honorable  estate"   for   "  honorable"  =  fftTj^- 
UGJV.  (?) 


58  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

44.   They  say  "  were  dead"  for  rt^vrjKS,  and  "  had  been 
dead"  for  ant^ave.     Note  the  tenses. 
47.    "  Was  laid"  =  rt^eirai. 

XVI. 

4.  *'  Exceeding"  for  "very"  =  Gcpodpa  (not  nspiffffcaZ). 
Exceeding  nice. 

5.  "Arrayed"  for  "clothed"  =  TtepifieftXrjfXEvoy  :  cf. 
Matt.  XXV.  35;  "robe"  for  " garment"  ==  O'roA.//?'.  How 
exquisitely  faithful  !     Cf.  John  xix.  2,  5. 

II  and  16.  "Disbelieve"  for  "believe  not"  =  aTiiarioD. 
But  see  Rom.  iii.  3,  where  the  sense  given  is  merely  priva- 
tive ;  and  Matt.  xiii.  58,  where  amaxLav  =  not  "dis- 
belief," but  "unbelief." 

iS.   "In  no  wise"  for  "not"  =  ov  jj.t}.     But  see  xiv.  31. 

ST.    LUKE. 


I.  "  Have  been  fulfilled"  for  "  are  most  surely  believed." 
Have  not  the  Revisers  here  yielded  too  easily  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  Vulgate?  And  would  they  not  have  done 
better  to  interchange  the  text  and  the  margin  ?  Does 
TtXj/pocpopioo  ever  thus  mean  exac/Zy  /le  same  as  TrXijpooo? 
They  have  given  the  same  rendering  also  at  2  Tim.  iv.  5, 
having  the  old  marginal  reading  to  support  them.  But  else- 
where, as  at  2  Tim.  iv.  17  ;  Rom.  iv.  21  ;  xiv.  5,  they  have  re- 
tained the  idea  of  full  assurance — not  the  mere  completion 
of  fact,  but  the  complete  confirmation  of  evidence.  At  Col. 
iv.  12  they  have  corrected  the  A.  V.,  putting  "  fully  assured" 
for  "completc,"the  text  being  changed  from  TtETtXripconivoi 
to  7r£7t\i]poq)opj]i.itvoi.  This  verb  "  to  be  fully  assured  of" 
may  be  compared  with  the  verb  "  to  be  entrusted  with." 
A  person  is  entrusted  \v\\\\.  a  thing,  or  the  thing  is  entrusted 
to  the  person  ;  so  a  person  is  fully  assured  of  a  thing,  or 
the  thing  is  fully  assured  to  the  person,  and  so  is  surely 
believed  hy  him. 

13.  "Because"  for  "  for;'' — why  .'  "supplication"  for 
"  prayer  ;" — consequential.     "  Is  heard"  is  for  an  aorist. 


ST.  LUKE.  59 

17.  Note  the  omission  of  the  Greek  articles  here,  and 
throughout  these  prophecies  and  hymns  ;  also  the  use  of  the 
aorist  for  the  perfect.  Yet  at  verse  19  they  put  ''  was  sent" 
for  "am  sent ;"  but  see  verses  30  and  47-55. 

22.  "Continued  making  signs"  for  "  beckoned"  = //k 
diavsvoov.     But  see  i.    14;    xv.  16,   etc.;    Mark  i.  22,  etc. 

35.  Here  one  can  only  wonder  that  the  suggestion  of  the 
American  Revisers  was  not  followed. 

44.  "Behold"  for  "  lo"  =  i'dov.  "When"  for  "as  soon 
as"  =  09?.  (.') 

46-55.  Aorists  rendered  perfects  all  through,  and  articles 
inserted  without  any  in  the  Greek. 

59.  "  Would  have  called"  =  iKocXovv.  This  seems  to 
imply  an  "  if"  following.  Would  it  not  have  been  better  if 
they  had  said,  "  were  disposed,  or  minded,  to  call"  } 

62.  "What"  for  "how."  Very  nice.  Perhaps  they 
would  correct  the  French  also,  and  put  "  que  (for  "com- 
ment") s'appelle-t-il"  ? 

68-79.  Aorists  and  articles  as  at  46-55.  At  72,  if  the 
article  is  supplied  it  wall  give  the  old  translation  and  a  more 
consistent  sense. 

76.   "  Make  ready"  for  "  prepare"  =  iroifxaGai :  but  see 

ii.  Si- 
ll. 

2.  "The  first"  for  "first;" — no  article  in  the  Greek. 
See  Matt.  xxii.  39.  They  translate  as  if  they  thought  that, 
in  the  phrase  "  was  the  first  made,"  etc.,  the  "  was  made" 
could  be  the  translation  of  iyevero  :  but  it  is  plain  the 
phrase  must  mean  "  was  the  first  which  was  made,"  and  yet 
they  have  not  marked  "  made"  as  an  insertion.  In  the  "  was 
first  made"  of  the  A.  V.,  "  was  made"  =  eyevero,  and  that 
without  any  trouble. 

6,  21,  22.  "  Fulfilled"  for  "  accomplished  ;" — consequen- 
tial. 

8.  "  By  night  over  their  flock"  for  "  over  their  flock  by 
night."  See  also  verse  41.  Theirs  is  the  Greek  order,  but 
the  A.  V.  has  the  English  and  the  logical  order ;  and  besides, 
our  ears  are  used  to  it.  But  see  ii.  11;  Matt.  xii.  40,  note ; 
2  Pet.  ii.  3,  etc. 


6o  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

9.  "  An  angel,"  "  the  glory  ;" —  no  article  in  the  Greek 
for  either.  See  also  "the  city  of  David,"  verse  11,  and 
"the  Holy  Ghost,"  verse  25. 

10.  "  Be  not  afraid"  for  "  fear  not ;"  but  see  ix.  34. 

29.  "  According  to  thy  word,  in  peace."  One  cannot  but 
wish  tliat  the  servile  faithfulness  of  the  Revision  had  some- 
times improved  the  English  or  cleared  the  sense;  but  for  the 
most  part  it  does  just  the  contrary.  Sec  note  at  verse  8. 
The  Revisers  arc  after  all  inconsistent  witli  themselves. 

31.  Here  they  render  i}T()ii.ia(ii\<i  "hast  prepared"  and 
not  "  hast  made  ready."  They  probably  adopted  some  rec- 
ondite distinction,  but  as  it  was  purely  arbitrary,  nobody 
can  thank  thcin  for  it. 

"Were  marvelling"  (imperfect);  but  see  Mark  xiv.  5, 
etc.,  etc. 

34.  "  Rising  up"  for"  the  rising  again  =  avaaraGiv  : 
it  should  be  "the  rising  again,"  if  it  is  "  the  falling;"  there 
is  no  article  in  the  Greek  witii  either;  but  if  they  are  re- 
ferred to  different  parties,  the  second  requires  the  article 
in  English  as  well  as  the  first.  "  Which  is"  for  "which 
shall  be."  The  latter  is  certainly  more  consistent  with  the 
context,  but  neither  need  be  inserted. 

35.  "Thoughts  of  many  hearts"  for  "  the  thoughts,"  etc. 
Wiivomit  the  article  here,  and  yet  insert  it  so  often,  where 
the  Greek  has  none  .^  See  verse  38,  "  the  redemption"  for 
"redemption."  (.') 

43.  "  As  they  were  returning"  for  "  as  they  returned" 
=  Ev  rch  xTioarpbipEiv  avroiri :  (.') — "  on  their  return." 

48.  "Sought  thee"  for  "have  sought  thee."  "Sought 
thee,"  when.?     Tlie  A.  V.  is  surely  right. 

52.  "Advanced"  for  "  increased."  This,  as  an  intransi- 
tive verb,  is  a  new  word  in  the  English  Version.  Is  it 
necessary  to  faithfulness  ? 

III. 

2.  "In  the  liigh-priesthood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas" 
for  "  Annas  and  Caiaplias  being  high  priests."  This  comes 
from  tlie  singular  apx^epiLCoi  being  substituted  in  the  text 
f(jr  the  plural  dpxi^ptcjy.     But  after  all  it  has  left  the  sense 


S7\  LUKE.  6 1 

the  same ;  and  if  a  change  in  the  expression  must  be  made 
to  conform  to  the  new  Greek,  it  would  be  simpler  to  say  : 
"Annas  being  high  priest  and  Caiaphas." 

4.   "  Make  ready"  for  "  prepare."  But  see  ii.  31,  andxii.  20. 

7.  "  Warned"  for  "hath  warned."  (.') 

13.  "  Extort"  for  "  exact"  =  TtpaGGSTS.  Does  the 
Greek  mean  "  work  out  of"  or  "twist  out  of".' 

14.  "Exact  anything  wrongfully"  for  "accuse  afty 
falsely"  =  Gvyiocpavryjaiirs.  (?) 

16.  "  With  water."  The  American  Revisers  suggest  "in 
water."  On  what  ground,  when  there  is  no  preposition  in 
the  Greek,  and  it  is  an  instrumental  dative .-"  They  are  to 
translate  each  Gospel  independently.  But  the  preposition 
iv  means  "  with"  or  "  by"  in  cases  innumerable. 

23,  etc.  The  articles  here  belong  to  the  names  and  not  to 
"  son"  understood.  "  The"  should  be  in  italics,  therefore,  as 
well  as  "  son."     See  Matt.  xxii.  42. 

IV. 

2.  "Completed"  for  "ended."  This  is  better  than  put- 
ting "  fulfilled"  for  "accomplished"  at  ii.  6,  21,  22. 

II.  "And,"  separated  from  the  quotation.  Right;  but 
they  should  have  been  as  careful  elsewhere,  as,  e.g.^  at  Heb. 
X.  38. 

16.  An  awkward  change  of  construction  to  suit  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  Greek.  Faithfulness  could  not  require 
it  for  that  purpose ;  and  whether  the  sen§e  required  it,  any 
intelligent  reader  can  judge. 

18.  "Anointed"  for  "hath  anointed,"  aorist ;  but  it  is 
manifestily  coordinated,  not  contrasted,  with  a  perfect.  Cf. 
Acts  xxi.  21,  24;  xxv.  10,  II,  etc. 

21.  "  Hath  been  fulfilled"  for  "is  fulfilled  ;"  but  see  "it 
is  written,"  "it  is  finished,"  etc.,  etc. 

26,  27.  "But  only"  for  "save"  and  "saving"  =  ei  fxrj. 
This  is  very  well  ;  though  the  "  only' '  is  really  added.  It  is 
not  in  the  Greek  here,  as  it  is  at  vi.  4  ;  where,  curiously 
enough,  the  Revisers  have  (for  consistency's  sake .-')  put 
"save"   for  "but"  =  si  jur} :  as  here  "but"   for  "save." 


62  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

And  yet  (for  still  greater  consistency's  sake  ?)  at  the  perfectly 
parallel  passage,  Matt.  xii.  4,  they  have  retained  the  "but" 
of  the  A.  V.  ;  while  again  at  the  parallel  passage  in  St.  Mark 
they  have  changed  the  "but"  to  "  save."  Indeed  this  n  f.a'j 
seems  to  have  been  made  a  sort  of  football  in  the  Revision, 
The  translation  ischanged  from  "but"  to  "save," — with  no 
better  and  no  more  consistent  reasons  than  in  the  forecfoinof 
instances, — at  Matt.  xi.  27;  Mark  ix.  29,  where  "nothing 
but"  ischanged  to  "nothing  save"  (while  at  Mark  xi.  13 
and  Matt.  v.  13  "nothing  but"  is  left);  x.  iS;  Rom.  xiii. 
8  ;  I  Cor.  ii.  1 1  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  5  ;  Rev.  xiv.  3.  On  the  other 
hand  "  save"  is  changed  to  "  but,"  not  only  here  in  St.  Luke, 
but  at  Rev.  ii.  17,  "  no  man  saving"  changed  to"  no  one  but," 
while  at  xiii.  17  and  xiv.  3,  "no  man  save"  is  retained.  At 
Rom.  vii.  7,  "but"  is  changed  to  "except,"  while,  in  per- 
fectly similar  constructions,  at  Matt.  xii.  24;  XV.  24;  John 
X.  10  and  xiv.  6,  the  "but"  is  retained.  Similar  cases  of 
consequential  changes  in  the  translation  of  iav  fjir]  will  ap- 
pear hereafter. 

28.  Here  the  change  of  construction  is  either  needless  or 
nonsensical.  What  sort  of  wrath  is  "wrath  in  the  syna- 
gogue" ? 

34.  "Ah"  for  "let  alone"  ^=  i'a.  (?)  "Art  thou  come" 
=  //A-S-f?  (aorist). 

38.  "  Holden"  for  "taken"  =  ffvi^exojAevy.  This  may 
be  faithful,  but  it  is  harsh  in  English.  Would  not  "  seized" 
be  better  .'  see  its  lesfal  sense. — Or  "afflicted"  ? 


9.  "  Amazed"  for  "  astonished."  (.')  Scarcely  consequen- 
tial even. 

10.  "  Sons"  for  "the  sons  ;" — the  less  natural  English. 
17.   "One  of  those  days"  for  "a  certain  day"  =  jam  rc^v 

ijfxepwv.  But  this  is  not  literal  after  all,  for  rc5r  is  not 
"those." 

19,20.  Change  of  construction  needless;  and  sec  Mark 
ix.  33  ;  Acts  xxi.  2,  3,  4. 

27.  "  Beheld"  for  "  saw"  =  eSeaffaro  :  but  sec  Matt, 
xi.  7,  note. 


^7;  LUKE.  63 


VI. 


I.  "Was  going"  forewent;"  but  "plucked"  and  "did 
eat"  are  equally  for  imperfects;  why  not  "went  on  pluck- 
ing and  eating"  ? 

35.  "Sons"  for  "the  children."  But  we  have  a  right  to 
insert  the  article  with  the  predicate,  if  it  makes  more  natural 
English ;  and  we  often  use  "  children"  for  uzo/,  as  "  the 
children  of  Israel." 

38.  "  Guide"  for  '•  lead  ;"   what  is  gained  } 

48,49.  "Brake"  for  "beat  vehemently"  =  npoffeppr}- 
^.BV.  (?) 

VII. 

4.  "And  they,  when  they"  for  "and  when  they,  they." 
A  familiar  piece  of  hypercriticism  ;  but  see  ix.  47 ; 
xxiii.  6,  8;  Mark  xv.  39;  Matt.  ix.  12;  xi.  2;  xii.  24,  etc., 
etc.     "Worthy  that  for  him"  for  "worthy  for  whom"  = 

5.  "Built"  for  "hath  built."  (?)  In  such  cases,  only  let 
the  intelligent  reader  consider  which  is  the  most  natural 
tense  in  the  connection  ;  and  remember  that  the  decision 
does  not  depend  at  all  upon  the  form  of  the  Greek. 

12.  "One  that  was  dead"  for  "a  dead  man"  =  rfSr//- 
jiooi.  "  The  only  son,"  no  article  in  Greek ;  why  not  "  an 
only  son"  ?  See  v.  20,  etc.  "  Was  a  widow,"  why  insert 
"  was"  ? 

20.  "Cometh"  for  "should  come"  =  o  Epx6}A£yo?  = 
"  is  to  come"  or  "  is  coming"  or  "  shall  come."  See  xviii. 
20;  John  xviii.  4;  xvi.  13;  Acts  xix.  4,  etc.  And  see  Matt, 
xi.  3,  note. 

22.  The  article  is  here  inserted  six  times,  and  yet  "  the 
Gospel"  is  changed  to  "good  tidings."  How  did  the 
Revisers  ascertain  that  the  vei-b  £vayyeXiB,o jxai  must  mean 
to  preach  "  good  tidings"  (a  gospel)  and  not  "  the  Gos- 
pel" ?     Certainly  not  from  the  Greek  article. 

24.  "  Behold"  for  "  see."     See  Matt.  xii.  7,  note. 

30.  "  For  themselves"  for  "  against  themselves"  =  fz?. 
What  does  this  mean  ?     Is  not  ei?  connected  with  ^ovXriv^ 


64  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

meaning-,  if  not  "  against,"  "towards"  or  "  in  regard  to"  ? 
But  cf.  Heb.  xii.  3. 

38.  "  Wet"  for  "wash"  =  ^/oejf  zr  .-  and  so,  at  verse  44, 
"wetted"  for  "washed."  This  certainly  does  not  sound 
well  in  English,  though  it  may  be  the  exact  sense.  It  is  too 
perfunctory,  too  menial.  We  must  consult  the  English 
idiom,  and  ask  what  we  should  say  in  the  circumstances.  If 
we  may  not  say  "  wash,"  is  not  the  natural  English  expres- 
sion "  bathe  "? 

39.  "That"  for  "for"  =  on.  (?) 

42.  "  Not  wherewith"  for  "  nothing."  (?)  In  the  connec- 
tion the  A.  V.  leaves  no  ambiguity. 

48.  "  Her  sins, which  are  many,  are  forgiven'  '=  aqjtoovrai 
ai  a}xapriai  avrij'i  ainoXkai.  If  they  had  been  as  zealous 
for  the  Greek  arrangement  here  as  in  some  other  cases,  they 
would  have  translated  :  ' '  Her  sins  are  forgiven  (or  Forgiven 
are  her  sins),  which  are  many,  for"  etc.  ;  and  would  thus 
have  given  us  what  the  preceding  parable  and  the  immedi- 
ately subsequent  clause  show  to  be  the  true  sense  of  the 
original,  viz.,  that  the  woman's  great  love  showed,  not  only 
that  her  sins  were  forgiven,  but  that  her  sins  forgiven  were 
many,  "  for  to  whom  little  is  forgiven  the  same  loveth 
little." 

49.  "  Who  is  this  that  even  forgiveth  sins  ?"  for  "  who  is 
this  that  forgiveth  sins  also  ?"  By  this  minute  change  how 
entirely  the  majestic  movement  and  cadence  of  the  English 
is  ruined !  And  as  for  the  sense,  or  faithfulness  to  the 
Greek,  see  their  own*  translation  at  Matt.  v.  40;  John  xi. 
52  ;  James  iii.  2,  3,  etc.  If  they  say  that  the  other  things 
to  which  the"  also"  makes  an  addition  are  expressed  in  those 
other  cases  and  not  in  this,  we  answer,  the  distinction  is 
purely  arbitrary  ;  it  is  enough  that  the  other  things  are  im- 
plied, that  they  are  in  the  mind  of  the  hearer  or  reader, 
whether  they  are  expressed  or  not. 

VIII. 

25.  "Marvelled"  for  "  wondered."  Shall  we  call  this  a 
''marvellous"  or  a  "wonderful"  piece  of  faithfulness? 
But  see  Matt.   xv.  31  ;  Luke  ii.  18;    iv.  22  ;  xxiv.  41  ;  Acts 


ST.  LUKE.  65 

vii.  31  ;  xiii.   41,  etc.,  where  it  seems  that  this  word  ^av- 
y.a^oj  may  mean  to  wonder  as  well  as  to  marvel. 

31,  32.  "  Intreated "  for  "besought"  =  TrapsuaXovv. 
What  is  the  faithful  difference  ?  They  have  rendered  this 
word  by  "besought"  at  Matt.  viii.  5,  31,  34;  xiv.  36; 
xviii.  29,  and  in  almost  innumerable  other  cases;  and,  to  cap 
the  climax,  they  have  so  rendered  it  at  Mark  v.  10,  12,  the 
passage  which  is  directly  parallel  with  this.  Yet  here  they 
go  out  of  their  way  to  correct  the  A.  V.  !  Is  it  faithfulness? 
Is  it  wantonness?  Nothing  but  their  consequefitial  rule 
could  be  pretended  as  a  justification  of  the  change  here ;  and 
yet  they  violate  that  rule  on  the  spot. 

34.  "Had  come  to  pass"  for  "was  done"  =  yeyovoi. 
As  for  the  tense,  these  are  both  forms  of  the  pluperfect,  and 
often  so  recognized  by  the  Revisers.  And  for  the  signifi- 
cation of  the  word,  see  verse  56,  "  had  been  done  ;"  Matt. 
xviii.  31,  "  was  done;"  xxiv.  21,  "hath  been;"  Mark  ii.  21, 
"is  made;"  Luke  xxii.  42,  "be  done;"  xxiii.  47,  48,  "was 
done,"  "  were  done." 

37.  "  Holden"  for  "taken"  =  Gvyeixovro.  Why  not 
"  seized  {i.e.  possessed)  with  great  fear"? 

39.  "  Publishing"  for  "  and  published. "(?) 

45.  Change  of  construction  unnecessary,  and  for  the 
worse  in  English.  The  Greek  has  not  unfrequently  a  sin- 
gular verb  before  several  connected  subjects. 

48.   "Go  in  peace."     Gr.  ez?  rendered  "  in  ;"  not  "  into." 

56.  "  Amazed  "  for  "astonished."  Consequential.  See 
ix.  43. 

IX. 

9.  "  Sought"  for  "  desired"  =  i8,i]ru.  (?) 

33,  24.  "Would"  for  "will,"  again.  See  Matt.  xvi.  24, 
25,  note. 

34.  "Said  these  things"  for  "thus  spake"  =  ravta 
\lyovroi.     But  see  xix.   28;  John  ix.  6.     "  They  feared" 

=  i(poli{-}'^r](5aVy — not  "were  afraid,''  as  see  ii.  10. 

"This  is  my  Son,  my  chosen."  For  construction,  com- 
pare Matt.  xvii.  5  ;    Mark  ix.  7. 

43.  "Astonished"  for  "amazed"  =  a^EnXtjaGovro. 
Consequential,  and  amazingly  important !     Cf.  viii.  56. 


66  NOTES   ON   THE   LATE  REVISION. 

47.  "But  when  Jesus  saw  the  reasoning"  for  "And 
Jesus  perceiving  the  thought."  We  let  pass  the  idea  of 
"  seeing  a  reasoning ;' '  and  merely  observe  that  the  Revisers 
have  here  adopted  a  construction  which  they  have  corrected 
in  the  A.  V.  in  unnumbered  instances,  substituting  for  it 
the  construction  "but  Jesus,  when  he  saw,"  etc.  =  o  dk 
Ir/ffovS  id  GOV,  k.t.X.  :  and  that  they  substitute  in  this  case 
the  Latin  circumlocution  for  the  participial  construction 
whose  use  they  had  promised  to  enlarge.  That  iScov  might 
mean  "perceiving"  appears  from  their  own  translation  at 
Matt.  xiii.  14;  and  Mark  iv.  12,  where  I'dtjre  ==  "  perceive." 
"  Thoughts"  is  their  translation  of  diaXoyifffxoi^t  Matt.  xv. 
19;  Mark  vii.  21 ;  Luke  ii.  35;  vi.  8.  Truly  they  are  hard 
to  please.     See  vii.  4,  note. 

X. 

5.  "  Shall  enter"  for  "  enter  ;"  but  see  John  iv.  14. 

II,  20.   "  Howbeit"   for  "  notwithstanding"  ^  7i\i)v. 

14.  "Howbeit"  for  "  but"  =  n\i']v.  This  "howbeit"  is 
evidently  a  faithful  favorite.     See  Matt.  xxvi.  64,  note. 

18.  "Beheld  falling"  for"  beheld  fall," — Ttaaovra.  But 
compare  Mark  ii.  16  ;  vii.  2  ;   ix.  38. 

2[.  "Didst  hide"  and  "didst  reveal"  for"  hast,"  etc.  (.') 

22.  "  Have  been  delivered"  for  "  are  delivered  ;"  but  see 
at  verse  20,  "  are  written.' '  "  Willeth  to  reveal"  for  "  will 
reveal;" — note,  they  do  not  here  say,  "desireth  to  reveal." 

30.  "  Made  answer,  and  "  for"  answering"  ==  vnoXaftcov. 
What  of  using  more  participial  constructions  7 

35.  "  I,  when  I  ;" — stiff  in  English,  and  needless.  "  Back 
again"  for  "again."  Either  word  might  be  used,  but  what 
need  of  both  }  The  Greek  does  not  refer  to  a  second  return, 
nor  does  it  at  all  require  this  reduplication. 

40.  "Did  leave"  for  "hath  left;"  and  yet  at  verse  42, 
"  hath  chosen"  =  iB,a\l:B,aro.  (!)  At  verse  39  why  did  they 
■not  render  the  imperfect  by  "  was  hearing"  {i'/KOVs)? 

XI. 

8.  "Arise"  for  "rise"  =  f.ysp'^Bii  : — a  petty  distinction 
■being  made  between  avaffrdi  and  eyBpSeii :  and  yet  the 
latter  is  else.vhere  freely  translated  by  the  word  "  rise." 


ST.  LUKE.  67 

14.  "Marvelled  for  "wondered"  ==  i^avfxaffav.  See 
viii.  25,  note. 

18,  19,  20.  "  Devils"  =  radaifJLOvia  (not  "the  devils"). 

24.  "  When  he  is  gone  out'  *  =  orav  e^sX^r^.  But  see 
Matt.  v.  II  ;  Mark  xii.  25,  for  the  tense.  And  for  the  con- 
struction, see  Matt.  xii.  43,  note.  "Turn  back  unto"  for 
"return"  =  vrtoGrpsipoo.  (?)     See  Matt.  xii.  44. 

33.  "In  a  cellar"  for  "  in  a  secret  place"  =  xpvTTTT^v.  The 
A.  V.  is  right,  whether  the  Revision  is  or  not.  "  Crypt"  — 
cellar — is  a  later  usage. 

35.  If,  to  be  very  faithful,  the  //?;  is  here  to  be  rendered 
"whether,"  ought  not  the  iativlo  be  rendered"  is"  and  not 
"be"? 

40.  "Foolish  ones"  for  "  fools"  =  acppovE^.  (?) 

41.  "  Howbeit"  for  "but  rather"  7c\t]v :  and  see  also  at 
xii.  31.     See  Matt.  xxvi.  64,  note. 

42.  The  article  is  here  again  omitted  before  "  mint"  and 
"  rue,"  but  see  "  the  weeping  and  gnashing." 


XII. 

5,7.  Three  times  cpofty^^rfTS  is  rendered  by  "fear," 
but  at  verse  4,  being  followed  by  ano^  by  "be  afraid." 
See  ii.  10,  where  it  is  "  be  afraid"  for  "  fear,"  without  the 
ano. 

15.  "  Keep  yourselves  from"  for  "  beware  of"  =  cpvXaG- 
(jeaBs,  i.e.  "be  on  your  guard  against."  Is  not  the  A.  V. 
right  ? 

20.  "  Hast  prepared  "  for  "  hast  provided"  =  rfToifxaffaZ^ 
not  "  made  ready."     See  iii.  4,  etc. 

26.  That  which  is  least"  =  i\axi(yrov.  It  is  not  rd 
iXaxiGrov :  so  that  the  Revisers  recognize  that  the  absence 
of  the  article  may  not  differ  much  from  the  use  of  the  gen- 
eric article.    See  conversely  "  the  sower,"  "  the  virgin,"  etc. 

33.  "  Draweth  near"  for  "approacheth;"— how  faithfully 
necessary ' 


39- 


"  Know  this"  for  "this  know"  =  rovto  6s  yivcoff- 
ners.  Who  can  fathom  the  depths  of  revisional  faithful- 
ness?    "  Have  left"  for  "  have  suffered"  =  dcprJHS :  where 


68  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE   REVISION. 

the  sense  must  be  the  same,  unless  they  suppose  the  man 
went  away  from  his  house,  to  go  to  sleep. 

45.  ♦'  Shall  say"  for  "say"  =  siit)^.  What  is  the  differ- 
ence in  the  sense  ?  It  is  subjunctive  aorist,  it  is  true;  but 
see  xiv.  34  ;  xvi.  30,  31 ;  John  viii.  51,  where  we  have  "go," 
"  rise,"  "have  lost,"  and  "  keep,"  in  the  same  construction. 

4S.  "Is  given"  =  eSoS-tj.  "Commit"  for  have  com- 
mitted" =  TzapeBsvTO.  (?)  Both  are  to  be  regarded  as 
perfects. 

53.  Here  the  sense  is  the  same,  whether  with  or  without 
the  articles.  If  used,  they  are  generic  or  indefinite ;  they  do 
not  refer  to  any  particular  object  already  definitely  in  the 
mind. 

59.  "Have  paid"  for  "  hast  paid"  =  aTtodcpS.  But  see 
verse  50,  "  be  accomplished  ;' '  John  xiii.  38,  "  hast  denied  ;" 
2  Pet.  i.  19,  "dawn;"  Matt,  xviii.  30,  "should  pay;" 
Mark  xii.  36,  "  make,"  etc. 

XIII. 

2,  4.  "Were  sinners," — syevovro. 

4.  "That  dwell''  for  "  that  dwelt."  If  we  say  "dwell- 
ers," which  of  the  two  would  be  understood  in  this  connec- 
tion ?     That  will  test  the  two  translations. 

3,  5.  The  K)(javrooZ  and  opLoicj^  of  these  two  verses, — 
which  are  both  rendered  "  likewise"  in  the  A.  V., — have  been 
interchanged  in  the  new  text ;  and,  to  show  the  exquisite 
nicety  of  their  faithfulness,  the  Revisers  have  rendered  one 
of  them  "in  like  manner"  !  While  they  were  about  it,  why 
didthey  not  render,  6/xoigli?  "  likewise,"  and  Goffavrao?  "just 
so,"  and  thus  transfer  in  full  the  Greek  etymologies .'' 

6.  They  insert  "  man"  (without  italics)  instead  of  their 
ordinary  "one." 

7,  8.  "  Also"  ==  7{ai, — not  "even;"  see  vii.  49.  "Doth 
cumber"  for  "  cumbereth."  What,  in  the  Greek  or  in  Eng- 
lish, requires  the  change  ? 

14.  "  Day  of  the  sabbath"  for  "  Sabbath  day."  The  Eng- 
lish reader  will  now  know  exactly  what  day  is  meant.  At 
xiv.  5,  however,  they  put  "  sabbath  day"  for  the  same 
Greek.     What  ^rrt'// we  say  .'* 


ST.  LUKE.  69 

23.  "On  unto"  for  "  toward"  =  £^s.  See  John  xx.  3, 
where  we  have  "toward"  for  "to"  =  sh.  "  That  be 
saved"  ==  ot  0go3,6}xevoi.  They  retain  the  "  be"  for  *'are," 
and  they  do  not  say  "  be  being  saved;"  but  see  Acts  ii.  47. 

25.  "  Is  risen  up  and  hatli  shut,"  for  the  aorist  subjunc- 
tive with  av. 

31.  "Would  fain"  for  "  will"  =  ^tXei.  Why  not  "  seek- 
eth  or  is  minded  (to  kill  thee)"  ?  This  would  be  as  con- 
sequential as  "would  fain,"  which  is  so  soon  after,  at 
XV.  16,  used  for  eTts^vjxsi. 

XIV. 

1,5.  "A  sabbath"  for  "  the  Sabbath  day."  Here  is  an  in- 
stance of  the  Revisers'  articular  precision.  But  if  faith- 
fulness required  such  minute  punctiliousness  here,  it  surely 
required  them  to  be  consistent  with  themselves  elsewhere. 
Yet  at  Matt.  xii.  2  ;  John  vii.22,  23,  they  render  e'v  Goc(3(3aTcp 
(no  art.)  "on  or  upon  the  sabbath."  At  Mark  vi.  2,  ysvo- 
fxivov  Gafijiatov^  and  at  Mark  xvi.  i,  diayEvofxirov 
Gaftfiarov,  are  rendered  "when  the  sabbath  was,"  etc. 
At  Luke  xxiii,  54  Gaft(5arov  (no  art.)  is  rendered  "the  sab- 
bath" (drew  on). 

S,  10.  "  Art  bidden"  =  HXri^rf; — not  "  shalt  be,"  but  see 
xvii.  10;  Mark  xiii.  7;  and  compare  with  these  last  Matt, 
xxiv.  15  and  Mark  xiii.  14. 

13,  21.  In  the  13th  verse  we  have  "  the  poor,  the  maimed, 
the  lame,  the  blind," — all  without  any  article  in  the  Greek ; 
— and,  in  verse  21,  we  have  "the  poor  and  maimed  and 
blind  and  lame," — with  the  article  in  the  Greek  before 
"poor"  only.  Now  if,  in  English,  the  article  is  understood 
before  the  latter  members  of  the  enumeration  after  being 
expressed  before  the  first,  in  verse  21,  we  cannot  comprehend 
why  it  could  not  have  been  understood  in  like  manner  in 
verse  13;  for  to  insert  "and,"  if  necessary,  before  the  last 
would  be  cheaper  than  to  insert  "the"  three  times.  But  if 
it  is  not  so  understood  in  verse  21,  then  we  do  not  see  why 
it  should  have  been  inserted  at  all  in  verse  13.  But  we 
humbly  beg  pardon  for  our  obtuseness. 

28.   "Desiring"  for  "  intending"  =  3-fAa?K.     Is  not  the 


7©  AZOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

A.  V.  right  here  ;  and,  in  general,  does  not  BiXo)  refer  more 
to  effective  purpose  or  volition,  and  less  to  mere  idle  desire, 
than  the  Revisers  are  accustomed  to  recognize  ? 

XV. 

1.  **  Were  drawing  near"  for  "  drew  near." — Harsh. 

4,  "And  having  lost  one"  for  "if  he  lose  one."  See 
verse  8,  showing  that  the  sense  is  really  the  same  ;  and  then 
compare  Heb.  vi.  6. 

5,  6.  "  When  he  hath  found"  =  Evpc^v  :  and  "  when  he 
Cometh"  =  f'AScjK;  both  with  the  indicative  present. 

9.  "I  have  found"  =  svpov.  "  I  had  lost"  =  anGoXsGa  : 
but  see  Mark  xii.  12. 

18,  21.  I  "have  sinned"  =i']ixaprov, — ^not  "I  sinned;" 
see  Rom.  v.  12. 

24.  "Is  alive  again"  =  avi^rjffey.  "Is  found"  = 
evpe^?/. 

30.  "Came"  for  "is  come,"  and  "  killedst"  for  "hast 
killed."  Aorists,  as  before  at  verses  5,  6,  9,  18,  21,  24, also 
at32  ;  where  they  are  rendered  perfects. 

XVI. 

2.  "  Canst"  =  dvv/fffr},  future;  see  Mark  iii.  17. 
4.  "  Each"  for  "  every."      But  see  Matt.  xxvi.  22. 

6,  7.  "  Bond"  for  "  bill"  =  raypafxixata  : — writings  or 
scrip.  (.'') 

8.  "  His  lord"  for  "the  lord"  =  o  nvpioi.  It  means 
"his  lord"  no  doubt,  but  see  at  verse  i,  "the  disciples" 
put  for  "  his  disciples."  Is  there  any  doubt  that  they  were 
"his  disciples".-*  The  construction  following  (with  the  A. 
V.)  departs  from  the  order  of  the  Greek,  which  puts  "  their 
generation"  after  "wiser;"  but  compare  other  passages 
where  the  Revisers  so  servilely  follow  the  Greek  con- 
struction. "  The  light"  for  "  light"  =  rov  cpooroi.  Here 
the  generic  article  is  not  necessary  in  the  English  idiom  ; 
sec  Rom.  xiii.  12;   Eph.  v.  ii. 

9.  "  That  they  may  receive  you."  Why  not  "  that  ye  may 
be  received"  .-*     See  xii.  20. 

13.  The  omission  of  the  article  before  the  second  "  one," 


ST.  LUKE.  71 

in  English,  makes  the  "or  else"  utterly  unmeaning.  We 
say  nothing  about  the  change  of  the  Greek  text ;  but  cf. 
Acts  i.  24. 

16.  "  Entereth  violently"  for  "  presseth"  =  ftia2,arai: 
— why  not  say  "  forceth  his  way"? 

21.  "Yea,  even"  for  "  moreover"  =  aWa,  nai.  But  see 
xxiv.  22. 

25.  "Son,"  retained  for  renvov.  This  would  better 
suit  the  English  ear  in  many  other  cases  also  ;  and  in  like 
manner  "children"  for  vioi.  But  the  Revision  commonly 
grecizes. 

30,31.  "Go, ""rise," — not  "shallgo,"  "  shall  rise" — for 
"  went,"  "  rose."  But  after  all  is  the  A.  V.  here  so  very  far 
from  right  ;  considering  that  "  went"  and  "  rose,"  after  "  if," 
used  often  to  mean,  and  still  may  mean,  "  should  go"  and 
"  should  rise"  ?  In  fact,  if  the  revised  translation  at  John 
viii.  55  is  correct,  then  the  A.  V.  in  this  pasgage, — much  as 
it  has  been  criticised  and  condemned, — is  right  after  all. 
For  the  question  is  not  whether  "  went"  and  "  rose"  may 
mean  "  should  go"  and  "should  rise," — of  this  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  as,  <^'.^.,  "  if  you  went  you  would  not  find  him," — 
but  the  real  question  is  whether  such  a  conditional  tense  as 
"  should  go"  or  "should  say"  can  grammatically  be  joined 
with  a  future.  But  it  is  so  joined  at  John  viii.  55, — "If  I 
should  say  ....  I  shall  be  ;"  and  that  in  the  Revision,  and 
that  deliberately,  for  it  is  a  passage  where  the  Revisers  have 
made  one  of  their  characterstic  emendations  of  the  A.  V., 
putting  "  shall  be  like  unto  you,  a  liar,"  for  "  shall  be  a  liar 
like  unto  you."  See  also  2  Cor.  x.  8  and  xii.  6.  Also  John 
vi.  62  may  bean  analogous  case,  where  the  Revisers  put  "if 
ye  should  see"  for"  if  ye  shall  see;"  while  at  Luke  xii. 
45,  they  correct  the  A.  V.  by  putting  "if  he  shall  say," 
for  "  if  he  say;"  and  then  here,  "  if  one  go"  and  "  if  one 
rise"  ! 

XVII. 

2.  "Were  well"  =  Ai^o'/rfAfz  .•  "were  hanged"  =  ^rfp/-- 
HSitai:  "  were  thrown"  =  i'ppnrtai  (perf.).  So  English 
idiom  counts  for  something. 

6.    "  Would  have  obeyed"  =  t;7r7;;i:of(r£y.    Wliata  jumble 


72  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

of  tenses  and  of  '\6.c:is  in  E>!glish ; —  "if  ye  have  faith,  ye 
would  say,  and  it  would  have  obeyed"  !     Cf.  verses  2,  9,  10. 

8.  "  Have  eaten  and  drunken."  Compare  xv.  4,  8, — to 
show  that  the  Greek  tenses  are  somewhat  flexible. 

9,  10.  Here,  the  tenses,  following  the  A.  V.,  are  conformed 
to  the  requirements  of  the  sense;  cf.  verse  G. 

20.  "  Cometh"  for  "  should  come.''  It  should  be  either 
(orat.  rect.)"  when  cometh  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"  or  (orat. 
obi.),  "  when  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come;"  as  in  the 
A.  V.     See  xviii.  9, — "were"  for  eiffi. 

34.  "  When  it  lighteneth"  for  "that  lighteneth;"  because 
the  text  is  changed  by  omitting  the  article  before  the  par- 
ticiple. Is  this  required  by  faithfulness,  or  is  it  the  precision 
of  pedantry  ?     Cf.  John  iv.  39  and  v.  44,  note. 

^2,-  "  Gain''  for  "  save"  ==  napiTtoii/aaG^ai  (new  text  for 
(jcoffat).  Do  they  mean,  "gain  his  livelihood"  ?  At  Heb. 
X.  39,  they  retain  "  saving"  for  TtefunolrjGi'^. 

XVIII. 

5.    "Wear  out"'  for  "  weary"  ^^vnoorciaB,)).  (?) 

7.  "  Cry  to  him  day  and  night"  for"  cry  day  and  night 
unto  him."     How  punctilious  the  faithfulness  ! 

19.  "  Even"  for  "  that  is.''  Is  this  for  belter  English,  or 
is  it  for  greater  faithfulness  to  the  Greek  1 

30.   "  World  to  come"  =  r^  £px<^l^f:vcp.     See  vii.  30. 

37.  "  That"  should  have  been  omitted,  as  elsewhere  by  the 
Revisers,  or  else  the  tense  changed.     See  xix.  7,11,  etc. 

XIX. 

8.  "Have  wrongfully  exacted"  for  "have  taken  by  false 
accusation"  =  £GV7ioq)avrj]<j(x.  (?) 

14.  "  We  will  not  that"  for  "  we  will  not  have."  Which  is 
the  better  English  ?     Cf.  Acts.  xvi.  3  ;   i  Cor.  x.  i ;  Col.  ii.  i. 

17.  "Wast  found"  for  "  hast  been"  =  fy^'i'oy.  (?)  For 
tense  see  verse  8. 

32.  "  Tiiat  I  am"  for  "that  I  was."  But  see  verses  7 
and  II. 

23.   "  Then  wherefore"  for  "  wherefore  then"  7 


ST.  LUKE.  73 

27.  "  Howbeit"  for  "but"  =  7t\i]V.  "But"  is  retained 
at  xxii.  21,  32;  xxiii.  28;   Matt,  xviii.  7,  etc.     Howbeit — 

42.  "  Arc  hid"  =  iupvp?]. 

43.  "  Bank"  for  "  trench"  ("  embankment"  ?)  ^  x^P^'^^- 
47.   "  Chief  of"  changed  to  "  principal  men   of"  =  ;rpa3- 

roi.     How    important !    how   exquisitely    exact !    or,    how 
considerate  of  tlie  Encrlisli  ear  ! 

4S.  "  Listening"  =  a;i:OL'(i9r.  But  "listening"  is  too 
strong.  Why  not  say  "  as  they  heard  him,"  and  be  con- 
sistent with  xvii.  24  ? 

XX. 

I.  "There  came"  for  "came"  encumbers  and  enfeebles 
the  English  without  being  a  whit  more  faithful  to  the  sense 
of  the  original. 

17.   "  Was  made"  for  "  is  become,"  =  iyevj'jBj].  (?) 

20.  "Righteous''  for  "just  men."  A  frequent  change — 
bad,  here,  and  rarely  necessary. 

25.  "Then  render"  for  "render  therefore."  Does  a 
change  in  the  order  of  the  Greek  require  a  change  in  the 
order  of  the  English  ? 

2)2,.  "  In  the  resurrection  therefore"  for  "therefore  in  the 
resurrection."  Greek  order  again.  But  is  this  for  better 
English,  or  is  it  for  a  different  sense  ?     Which  ? 

36.  "  Sons"  for  "  the  children"==  vioi.  As  for  the  article, 
this  is  a  predicate  ;  and  as  for  the  noun,  what  is  the  dif- 
ference? and  see  "the  children  of  Israel." 

43.  "  Footstool  of  thy  feet,"  again.  For  this  un-English 
reduplication,  the  Revisers,  as  we  ought  to  acknowledge, 
have  the  authority  of  the  Rhemish  version.  But  the  Vul- 
gate was  not  deformed  with  such  a  verbal  jingle,  reading 
"  scabellum  pedum  tuorum  ;"  which  Wyclif  imitated  well 
with  his  "stool  of  thi  feet."  The  case  is  similar  also  with 
the  original  Hebrew  text.  In  the  Greek  the  alliteration 
may  have  been  a  beauty  or  a  necessity.  There  may  have 
been  no  good  word  for  stool,  which  was  not  "  footstool." 

XXI. 

I.  If  "the"  belongs  to  "  rich  men,"  here,  what  occasion 
for  inserting  "  that  were"  before   "casting"?     And  notice 


74  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

that  though  tlie  order  in  the  Greek  text  has  been  changed 
so  as  to  bring  "treasury"  before  "gifts,"  tlie  Revisers  have 
not  felt  bound  in  faitlifulness  to  change  the  order  in  the 
English,  and  say  "casting  into  the  treasury  their  gifts." 
This  is  sensible  ;  but  see  xx.  25,  etc. 

13.  "Bringing"  for  "being  hrou^ht^'  =  art  ay  opuvov^. 
Which  is  more  faithful  to  the  original } 

13.  "Unto"  for  "to,"  with  dative.  How  exquisitely, 
how  unspeal:ably  nice  the  sense  which  found  this  change 
required  by  faithfulness!  At  xviii.  7,  they  substitute  "to" 
for  "  unto,"  their  text  having  substituted  the  dative  for 
Ttpoi  with  accusative ! 

15.   "Withstand"   for  "resist."     Why.^ 

19.   "Win"     for    "possess."       Good;    but    would    not 

"  gain"   be  better  } 

XXII. 

1,7.  "  Of  unleavened  bread,"  rG5r  a<5f/^G!?^.  Buttlicarti- 
cle  } 

10.  "  Whereinto  he  goeth"  for  "where  he  entereth  in" 
=  ov  eiGnopsvctai  ==  "  where  he  goeth  in." 

17,  19.  Change  of  construction  entirely  indefensible. 
See  Mark  xiv.  22  ;  note. 

18.  "Until  shall  come"=  f'A^/?.     But  see  xii.  59. 

24.  "  Is  accounted"  for  "  should  be  accounted."  Better, 
"was  accounted"  (orat.  obi.),  i.e.,  rightfully,  as  A.  V. 
means? 

31,  32,  33.  "  Asked"  for  "  hath  desired;"  "made  suppli- 
cation" for  "  have  prayed."  (.')  In  all  their  other  changes 
in  these  three  verses  the  Revisers  are  inconsistent  with 
themselves,  except  in  putting  "  stablish"  for  "  strengthen," 
and  this  was  scarcely  necessary.  For  "  thou,"  etc.,  see 
xxiii.  6,  8. 

37.  "  Fulfilled"  for  "  accomplished"=rfA£0'S?7r«'z.  But 
see  John  xix.  38,  30.     So  "  fulfillment"  for  "end"==  reXoi. 

43,  43,  44.  "  Be  donQ^=yivi(}SGO  :  "  being"  =  y6v6/.i6- 
vo? :  "  became"  for  "  was"  =  EytvsTO.  But  one  of  the  pet 
ideas  of  the  Revisers  seems  to  have  been  to  correct  the  A. 
V.  in  its  variations  of  the  rendering  of  (he  same  word  in  a 
given  connection.     See  Acts  xxvi.  24,  25. 


ST.    LUKE.  75 

46.  "That  not"  for  "  lest"==fW  fxtf.  But  see  John  v.  14  ; 
xii.  40,  etc.     What  is  their  nice  distinction  ? 

56.  "  In  the  light  of  the  fire"  for  "  by  the  lire"=  ;rpo?  to 
9)g5?  =  "  at"  or  "by  tlie  light,"  not  "  in."  (The  Portu- 
guese uses  "  lume"  for  "fire.")  The  change  of  construc- 
tion is  needless.  "Looking  steadfastly"  for  "earnestly 
looked"  =  arzviaaaa  :  but  at  Acts  vi.  15  they  have 
actually  changed  the  "  looking  steadfastly"  of  the  A.  V,  to 
"fastening  their  eyes,"  although  there  are  in  the  Greek 
no  more  "  eyes"  there  tlian  here  ! 

57.  In  their  text  the  order  of  the  Greek  is  changed  from 
yvvai^  OVK  oida  avTov  to  ovk  oida  avTor,  yvvai .-  and 
yet  they  have  left  "  woman"  as  it  stood  in  the  A.  V.  But 
see  XX.  25  ;  see  also  Matt.  xxvi.  22,  25,  etc. 

64.  The  change  of  construction  here  is  unnecessary,  and 
destroys  a  pleasing  variety. 

XXIII. 

I.  "  Brought"  =  'I'lyayov :  but  at  xxii.  54  it  is  rendered 
"  led  away."  In  the  A.  V.  it  is  "  led"  in  both  cases.  At 
xxii.  54,  ai(jr']yayov^  "  brought,' '  immediately  follows. 
Which  translation  is  most  faithful  to  the  original .' 

6,S.  "  When  Pilate  heard,"  "when  Herod  saw."  For 
the  construction  see  vii.  4,  note. 

14,  15.  These  aorists  w^ould  be  more  naturally  translated 
as  English  perfects,  with  the  A.  V.     See  verses  22  and  41. 

19.  The  insertion  of  "one"  before  "who"  (for  ooTz?)  is 
not  necessary,  as  they  themselves  show  elsewhere.  "  Was 
cast  into"  =  7/k  ySA^/^fk  iv  rrj.  Here  sv  tTj  (pvXauij—a, 
new  reading — is  rendered  just  as  f  zV  cpvXauTjv  is  at  verse  25 
— preposition  and  article  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

20.  The  "again"  is  not  put  in  the  Greek  order;  but  see 
the  faithful  corrections  at  Mark  iv,  i  ;  viii.  13,  25  ;  xiv.  70, 
etc. 

44.  "  Now"  =  rfStf.  But  see  Matt.  xiv.  15,  where  "  now" 
is  changed  to  "already."  "A  darkness"  for  "darkness" 
=  (jKOTO?.  But  see  Matt,  xxvii.  45,  and  Mark  xv.  33,  where 
they  say  "darkness."  Was  this  petty  insertion  of  "a," 
then,  required  by  faithfulness  here  and  not  there  ? 


76  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

47.  "Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man."  In  St.  Mat- 
thew the  centurion  "  and  they  that  were  with  him"  said, 
"Truly  this  was  the  Son  [not  '  a  son']  of  God,"  Matt, 
xxvii.  54.  The  centurion  had  probably  heard  at  the  trial 
of  Jesus — and  must  have  heard  from  the  taunts  of  those  who 
mocked  him  upon  the  cross — that  he  claimed  X.o  he  "  the  Son 
of  God."  He  now  cries  out,  "  Certainly  this  was  a  righteous 
man," — a  man  who  would  be  guilty  of  no  falsehood  or  fraud  ; 
he  must  therefore  hQivhat  he  claimed  to  be, — he  must  be,  '"''  he 
was,  the  Son  of  God.''  Whether  the  centurion  himself  used 
the  various  expressions,  or  whether  they  are  to  be  ascribed 
partly  to  the  centurion  and  partly  to  "  them  that  were  with 
him,"  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence.  We  should  say  of 
Achilles,  "He  was  the  son  [not  '  a  son']  of  a  goddess;" 
and  of  Hercules,  "  He  was  the  son  of  Jupiter." 

49.  "  Seeing"  for  "  beholding"  =  o/OcSo'a'z.  Now  if  this 
were  an  original  translation  we  should  be  far  from  finding 
any  fault.  But  was  there  any  need  of  the  change  ?  The 
lexicons  give  \.o  opaoo  ^.xv^  eiSov  the  meaning  "behold." 
The  Revisers  translate  idov  in  the  next  verse  "  behold." 
The  connection  shows  that  op^aai  in  this  verse  means  the 
same  as  '^BooprjaavrBz  in  the  48th  verse ;  and  we  have 
already  seen  (and  shall  further  find)  that  the  Revisers  have 
been  constrained  to  allow  "see"  as  a  translation  of  S-scopso), 
as  well  as  of  opaoo.     See  John  viii.  51,  etc. 

54.  "The  day,"  "the  sabbath."  No  article  in  the 
Greek. 

56.  The  yi'y  is  here  ignored.     The  answering  6k  is  in  the 

next  verse  (xxiv.  i). 

XXIV. 

6  and  34,  "  Is  risen"  =  i]y£pS7'i : — not  "was  raised ;"  but 
see  I  Cor.  xv.,  etc. 

13.  "  Were  going"  for  "  went."  But  this  might  mean, 
"  were  intending,  or  about,  to  go." 

26.  "Behoved  it  not"  for  "  ought  not."  Why  not  say 
"must  not,"  as  at  Mark  xiv.  31  ? 

30.   "  When"  for  "  as"  =  iv  rep  =  while. 

34.  "  Is  risen"  =  I'lyepOtf :  "hath  appeared"=  Gocpdt],  See 
John  ii.  22. 


ST.  JOHN.  77 

39.  "  Behold  me  having"  for  "  see  me  have;" — Greek  for 
English. 

41.  "Disbelieved  for  joy"!  A  strange  state  of  mind; 
but  see  Mark  xvi.  14,  and  Rom.  iii.  3  and  iv.  20.  Unbelief, 
or  want  of  faith,  and  positive  disbelief  are  two  things. 

51.  "He  parted"  for  "he  was  parted"  =  (J'z/o'r/;.  The 
verb  may  mean  either  "  to  stand  apart"  or  "  to  be  parted." 

50.  "Over  against"  for  "to"==7rpo?.  Here  Trpo?  is  a 
new  reading  for  sh,  and  of  course  must  be  respected.  But 
it  is  rendered  "to"  or  "unto"  by  the  Revisers  fifty  times 
to  once  of  "  against,"  and  we  do  not  find  another  instance 
of  **  over  against." 

ST.  JOHN. 
I. 

3  and  10.   "  Were  made"  =  eylveTo. 

6.  "  Came"  for  "  was"  =  ayirero. 

7.  "  Came"  =  ^)A6^fy.  "Might  believe  through  him" 
for  "  through  him  might  believe."  Did  faithfulness  require 
this  conformity  to  the  Greek  order  just  here  and  not  at 
Matt.  X.  32,  etc.,  etc. } 

7,8.  "That  he  might,"  "that  they  might,"  for  "  to"  = 
i'va.     But  cf.  verse  19;  iii.  17,  etc. 

9.  "There"  for  "that"  spoils  the  sense;  and  what  need 
of  inserting  "  even  the  light"  "^  unless,  indeed,  the  text  is  to 
mean  the  same  as  the  margin  ;  and,  if  so,  the  margin  is  cer- 
tainly the  clearer  and  better  translation. 

II.  Here  the  Revisers  have  only  half  done  their  work. 
They  have  shown  that  the  second  "his  own"  are  persons 
(masculine)  ;  they  fail  to  show  that  the  first  "  his  own"  are 
things  (neuter).  It  would  be  difficult  fully  to  bring  out  the 
distinction  in  English.  If  we  might  change  the  number  of 
the  first  "his  own,"  we  might  say,  "he  came  to  what  was 
his  own,  and  they  that  were  his  own  received  him  not ;"  or, 
retaining  the  number,  "  he  came  to  his  own  possessions,  and 
his  own  people  received  him  not."  At  Matt.  xix.  21,  ra 
vnafixovra  (plural)  is  rendered  "  that  thou  hast."  But 
what  trifling!      Everybody  knew   before    that  the  second 


78  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

"his  own"  nieant  persons,  and  the  first,  thougli  neuter  in 
the  Greek,  must  mean  substantially  the  same. 

12.  "Children"  for  "the  sons,"  and  "the  right"  for 
"power."  No  article  in  Greek  with  either;  and  yet 
"children"  is  a  predicate,  while  "  riglit"  is  not. 

14.  "We  beheld  his  glory,  glor}^,"  etc.  Surely  the  last 
"glory"  should  have  either  "the"  or  "a;"  for  by  the  fore- 
going "  his"  it  has  already  been  individualized.  The  mar- 
ginal reading  is  curious  on  articles. 

15.  Here  "  is  become"  for  "  is  preferred"  is  scarcely 
intelligible.     Why  not  say,  "  is  put"  } 

18.  A  perfect  and  an  aorist  are  coordinated  ;  and  o  gjk  is 
rendered. "  which  is,"  and  not  "  even  he  which  is." 

27.  Cf.  '' evefi  he  that  "  with  "which"  at  verse  29  ;  and 
"  one  whom"  with  o  ffTreipojv. 

32  and  38.  "  Ha\'e  beheld"  for  "saw"  =  reS'tcYjuai,  and 
*'  beheld"  for  "saw"  =  ^saffdjusvos.  But  see  vi.  5  ;  Mark 
xvi.  14;  Acts  xxi.  27;  Rom.  xv.  24,  etc.  And  are  not 
TS^aa/.mi  and  e'/u£iv€v  in  fact  coordinated  in  time.^  Cf. 
iii.  33;   Phil.  iv.  ir,  12,  etc. 

;^6.  Here  the  A.  V.  follows  the  Greek  in  the  participial 
construction,  which  the  Revision  changes. 

41.  "Findeth  first"  for  "first  findeth."     Well? 

42.  "Unto"  for  "to"  =  vrpo?.  Happily  it  is  not  "over 
against."  But  see  Matt.  ii.  12  ;  iii.  14,  etc.,  etc.,  where  all 
along  Trpos  is  rendered  by  "to."  Just  think  of  this  in- 
effable faithfulness. 

43.  "  Was  minded  to"  for  "would;"  much  better  than 
"desired  to,"  as  elsewhere. 

45,  46.  Why  not  follow  the  Greek  order, — "Jesus,  son 
of  Joseph,  even  him  from  Nazareth"?  Compare  Heb.  ii.  9; 
and  for  "son"  without  the  article  compare  Mark  iii.  17. 

II. 

3.  "The  wine"  for  "wine"  (gen.  abs.),  no  article  in 
Greek.     Faithfulness; — see  Matt.  xxvi.  37,  etc. 

9.  "  Now  become"  for  "which  was  made," — marg.  "that 
it  had  become,"  =  yeysvf^jutvov.  How  they  wrestle  with 
their  articular  purism  ! 


sr.  JOHN.  79 

lo.  "Have  drunk  freely"  for  "have  well  drunk"  = 
pLB'^va^cbaiv.  Is  either  right?  The  Greek  word  has  no 
relation  to  drtnki?ig,  except  in  connection  with  drunkenness. 

13.  "Passover  of  the  Jews"  for  "  the  Jews'  Passover."  (?) 
See  verse  6. 

15.  "He  made"  for  "when  he  had  made"  =  ^toza/o' «';.(?) 

16.  If  faithfulness  required  the  order  to  be  changed  here, 
why  did  they  not  also  say  at  verse  15,  "the  tables  he  over- 
threw," thus  being  consistent? 

20.  "Was  in  h\\\\^\x\<g'  =  cpKo8o}xr]'^rj — aorist  rendered 
as  imperfect,  for  continued  action. 

22.    "Was   raised"    for    "was   risen"  =  ijyep^rjj  again. 

See  Luke  xxiv.  34,  etc. 

III. 

3.  "Anew"  for  "  again"  =  ofrtySf v.  (?)  The  A.  V., 
margin,  "from  above." 

4.  "A  second  time"  for  "  the  second  time"  =  dsvrepov. 
(See  Mark  xii.  31  and  xiv.  72);  and  then  "of  water  and 
the  Spirit," — no  article  in  Greek  with  either. 

6.  "  That  which  is  born,"  not  "has  been  born."  See 
verses  18,  21,  and  27. 

12.  "  If  I  told"  for  "if  I  have  told"  ==  fW  f /tto?  ;  not 
"shall  tell."  See  their  correction  at  Luke  xii.  45  ;  and 
for  the  "have"  see  Luke  xiv.  34,  etc.     Cf.  John  viii.  55. 

13.  "  Out  of  heaven"  ==  in  rov  ovpavov.  But  see  verse 
31.  "  Which  is '  =  o  Ci9x^  .•  not  "even  he  which  is."  But 
see  James  iv.  12. 

15.  Text  and  margin,  interchange? 

16.  "  His  only  begotten  Son,"  not  "his  Son,  the  only 
begotten,"  or  "  even  him  who  was  his  only  begotten,"  to 
conform  to  the  Greek. 

18.  "Judged"  for  "condemned;" — but  the  judgment 
must  here  imply  condemnation,  and  yet  it  is  not  the  idio- 
matic or  natural  English  word  for  that  purpose.  "Doom" 
and  "condemn"  would  be  the  exact  etymological  corre- 
spondents to  npivGo  and  HaranpivGD. 

21,  27.  "  Have  been  wrought, "  "have  been  given,"  for 
"  are  wrought"  and  "be  given;"  but  see  "it  is  written," 
and  verse  6  ;  and  see  at  verse 


8o  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

24.  "Was  (not  yet)  cast"  =  v^  /Jf/^A^/yUiV o?  =  "had 
been  cast." 

32.  ' Kaopajisy  and  yuovaev  are  coiirdinated,  and  are 
rendered  together  as  perfects.     Cf.  xvii. 

33,  34.  Aorists  continue  to  be  rendered  as  perfects  right 
througli ;  and  here  we  have  "hath  sent"  for  aTteareiXev, 
which  elsewhere  is  rendered  "sent."      Cf.  xvii. 

IV. 

3.  "  Departed"  =  a7tf}\B-£v.    But  see  v.  15  and  Acts  xvi. 

39;  4°- 

4.  "Must  needs"  =  sdsi.     But    see  Acts  i.  16  ;  xvii.   3  ; 

and  compare  Luke  xxii.  7  and  Heb.  ix.  26. 

8.  "  Were  gone,"  not  "  liad  gone"  for  the  pluperfect. 

9.  "Therefore"  for  "then,"  and  order  changed.  This  is 
the  ouv  of  sequence,  not  of  consequence.?  "Samaritan 
woman"  for  "  woman  of  Samaria," — faithfulness  ! 

10.  "  Knewest  ;"  should  it  not  be  "  hadst  known,"  as  it 
is  followed  by  "  wouldest  have  asked"  ? 

17.  "  Saidst"  for  "  hast  said"  =  sinas.  {}) 

18.  "  Hast  had"  =  f'b'jfS'. 

19.  "  Perceive"  =  B£GjpcD.     But  see  xii.  19. 

25.  "Declare"  for  '^  tell"  =  avayyeXei  ==  announce,  re- 
port.    "Tell"  is  nearer  than  "declare".' 

27.   "  Speak"  for  "  talk"=  XaXeco.  [?) 

31.   "Prayed"  (not  ^'  asked")  =  7jpo9T  gov  :  note. 

^^.  "  The  disciples  therefore  said"  for  "  therefore  said  the 
disciples."  How  strikingly  necessary  !  "  Hath  brought"= 
i^veyHSv. 

35.  "Look  on"  (not  "behold")  =  Sf^o'n'O-^f.  Cf.  i  John 
i.  I,  where  they  change  "  looked  upon"  to  "  beheld." 

39.  "  Who  testified."  No  article  with  the  participle;  but 
see  Heb.  i.  i,  and  Luke  xvii.  24. 

45.  "So"  for  "then."  The  our  of  sequence.  And  so, 
often ;  but  what  of  it .' 

46.  But  here  "so"  is  changed  to  "therefore."  Compare 
verses  52  and  53. 

47.  "  When  he  heard  .  .  he ;"  not  "  he,  when  he  heard"  = 
OVTOS  axovffa?. 


ST.  JOHN.  8 1 

54.  "Having  come"  for  "when  he  was  come."  See 
Mark  xiv.  45  and  Acts  xx.  2. 

V. 

2.    "■  In"  for  "  at :" — faithfulness. 

3,5,  7.  "■  Impotent"  changed  to  "  sick"  =  aff^svovvTGDV  : 
but  "infirmity"  retained  for  aG^avsia. 

6.   "  Wouldst"  for  "wilt  ;"  but  see  verses  21,  40. 

8.  "Arise"  for  "rise."  (!) 

9.  "  Was  made  [not  '  became']  whole"  =  ayivEto. 

10.  "So"   for  "  therefore"  =  o?)i^  ; — wherefore?    Cf.  iv. 

46. 

14.  '' I^csV  =  iv  a  )j.rj :  but  see  xii.  35,  40.  "Befall"  for 
"come  unto"  =y£y7]rai.   (?) 

15.  "  Went  away"  for  "  departed  ;"   see  iv.  3. 

16.  "For  this  cause"  for  "  therefore"  =  <Jiar  ToOro,  fol- 
lowed by  "because,"  also  at  verse  18;  and  so  atvi.  65,  and 
I  John  iii.  i.  Butcf.  Matt.  xiii.  13;  xxiv.  44;  Luke  xii.  22, 
etc. 

19.  "But"  =  €av  }xi).  CompareGal.  ii.  16,  Note  the  rz, 
rendered  "what,"  equivalent  to  "that  which,"  like  a  after- 
wards. 

36,  27.  "Gave"  for  "hath  given;"  (?)  "  a  son  of  man" 
should  be  "  the  son  of  a  man,"  if  any  change.  "  Shall  come 
forth"  (not  "go")  =  auTtopavGovrai. 

29.  "Done  [or  practised]  ill,"  for  "done  evil"=ra? 
(pavXa  7ipaB,ayrai. 

34.  Literally:  "but  I  not  from  man  receive  the  testi- 
mony." "May  be  "saved"  for  might  be  saved"  = 
GGD^r/re.  (?) 

35.  Better,  "the  burning  and  shining  lamp"  than  "the 
lamp  that  burneth  and  shineth."  (?) 

44.  "Which  vQceiYQ"  =Xafxftavovr£i, — not  01  \a}x§. : 
see  also  iv.  39  ;  but  compare  Luke  xvii.  24;  Heb.  i.  1,  etc. 

VI. 

2.  "  Sick"  for  "  diseased;"  but  see  Acts  xxviii.  9. 
5.  "  Seeing"  =  S^eorG-a/ieyos ;  but  see  i.  32,  etc.,  etc. 


82  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

6.  "Are  to"  for  "shall."  The  subjunctive  does  not 
require  the  change. 

11.  "Having  given  thanks"  for  "when  he  had  given 
thanks."  If  faithfulness  required  this  change  here,  why  not 
also  at  Mark  xiv.  22,  23;  Luke  xxii.  17,  19?  and  compare 
Matt.  XX vi.  26,  27. 

12.  "Broken  pieces"  for  "fragments."  (?) 

13.  "  So"  for  "  therefore"  =  oi)?^.  How  nice  !  See  verse 
19  and  iv.  46. 

14.  "  When,  therefore,  the  people  saw  the  sign  .  .  .  they 
said,"  for  "  then  those  [the]  men,  when  they  had  seen  the 
miracle,  said,"  =  01  ouv  avOpooTtoi  idovrei  <j7j/XEior.  See 
Luke  xxiii.  8,  where  (J7//<£?ok=  "  miracle  ;"  see  verse  11 
for  the  tense  of  iSoi^rei :  and  ocvOpooTioi  commonly  means 
"men,"  As  for  the  change  of  construction  it  is  directly 
the  reverse  of  the  Revisers'  ordinary  correction, — see  Luke 
vii.  4,  note.  "  Cometh"  for  "  should  come"  =  o  epxojASvo?. 
See  Matt.  xi.  3  and  Luke  vii.  20,  notes. 

15.  "  Were  about  to"  for  "  would"  =  jJtXXovffi  :  but 
see  verse  6,  "  would"  =  e'/asXXs,  and  verse  71. 

17.  "Was"  =  iysyovEi,  why  not  "was  [or  'had'] 
grown."  "  Had  come"  =  eXi^XvOei  for  "  was  come  ;"  but 
see  xi.  30;  xvi.  28,  32;  xvii.  i,  etc.,  etc.  Consistency 
faithfulness,  "straightway."  "Unto"  for  "  toward"  = 
fr?  .•  but  see  xx.  3,  where  they  put  "  toward"  for  "to;"  and 
they  have  frequently  changed  "to"  to  "  for"  =  f  z?, — see 
Acts  xxvii.  I,  6 — to  which  "  toward"  would  here  correspond; 
per  contra,  Acts  xxvii.  2.  The  intelligent  English  reader 
can  decide  questions  like  these  as  well  as  the  profoundest 
Greek  scholar. 

19.  "  When  therefore"  for  "  so  when"  =  ovv  after  part, 
perf.     See  verse  13. 

21.  "They  were  willing,  therefore,  to  receive  him,"  for 
"  Then  they  willingly  received  him"  =  ydeXov  ovv  Xaftelv. 
Which  is  the  sense  ? 

25.  "When  they  found"  for  "  when  they  had  found"  = 
BX)p6vreZ.  See  verse  11,  note,  and  Acts  xxi.  2,  3,  4. 
"  Camest"  =yeyova?,  not  "hast  come;"  see  also  Gal.  iii. 
17;  2  Cor.  ii.  13,;   Heb.  xi.  28.     How  durst  they  render  a 


ST.  JOHN.  83 

perfect  thus  ?  Cf.  i.  3  ;  Matt,  xix,  8 ;  xxiv.  21 ;  xxv.  6  ;   Mark 
V.  2)3y  6tc. ,  etc.;  especially  Mark  ix.  21. 

27.  "  For  him  the  Father,  even  God,  hath  sealed"  =  rovtov 
yap  6  nan)p  eGqxxyiGsv,  6  Qsos.  What  a  jolt  in  the 
English  !  And  why  change  at  all  ?  or,  if  they  must  change, 
why  not  adhere  strictly  to  the  Greek,  and  say:  "for  him 
did  the  Father  seal,  even  God"  ? 

28.  "  What  must  we  do  ?"  for  "  What  shall  we  do  ?"  =  ti 
TtOK^fxsv j  (?)     What  shall  we  say? 

29.  "Hath  sent,"  marg.  "  Sent"  =  o^^f  crf  zAf  v.  Won- 
drous nicety. 

30.  "  What  workest  thou  ?"  for  "  What  dost  thou  work.'" 
Revisional  faithfulness. 

31.  ''Ate"  for  "did  eat."  But  see  verse  49,  where  "  did 
eat"  remains.  They  could  not  hold  the  split  hair  steady. 
**Outof  heaven"  for  "from  heaven."  But  see  iii.  31  ;  Rev. 
X.  4,  etc. 

32.  34.   ^' Jesus  therefore"  for  "then  Jesus,"  =  ovv.  (.') 
37,  39.   "  All  that  which"  for  "  all  that"  =  Ttdv  o.  (?) 

40.  "  Beholdeth"  for  "  seeth"  ==  dscopc^v.  (?) 

44.  "In"  for  "at"  (the  last  day)  ^  £v.     But  they  retain 
"at"  at  39,  40,  54,  etc. 
49,  58.  "  Died"  for  "are  dead."     But  see  viii.  52,  etc. 

41,  53,  etc.,  etc.  "Therefore"  for  "then"  =  o?)K.  This 
change  is  so  frequent  in  St.  John's  Gospel  that  we  need  refer 
to  it  no  more  in  particular.  The  question  is,  does  the  ouy 
express  narrative  sequence  or  logical  consequence  ?  The  Re- 
visers differ  in  judgment  here  from  the  forty-seven  transla- 
tors of  the  A.  v.,  assuming  a  logical  consequence  much  more 
frequently  than  their  predecessors.  This  can  be  supposed 
and  imagined  in  many  cases,  where  it  is  by  no  means  neces- 
sary to  presume  it.     Let  intelligent  readers  judge. 

56.  "  Abideth"  for  "  dwelleth"  =  /<tV£z.  So  the  indwell- 
ing of  Christ,  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  us,  is  henceforth  to 
be  an  "  in-abiding." 

65.  "For  this  cause"  for  " therefore"  ==  (Jza  rouro.  See 
ix.  16  ;  Acts  xxviii.  20;  Rev.  xii.  12;  and  notes  at  v.  16,  and 
I  John  iii.  i.  "Be  given"  for  "were  given"  (have  been 
given). 


84  NOTES   OiV   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

66.  "  Upon  this"  for  "  from  that  time"  =  in  tovtov. 

67.  "  Would  (for  "  will")  ye  also  go  away"  =  diXeTS}  but 
see  V.  40. 

70.  "  Did  choose"  for  "  have  chosen."  (?) 

71.  "  Should"  =  y/xeXXsv  :  not  "  was  about  to."    See  verse 

15  and  vii.  39. 

VII. 

3.  "  Behold"  for  "  see"  =  dsGopeoo.  The  particular  cases 
of  this  pet  alteration  need  not  be  further  noticed.  Is  it  re- 
quired by  faithfulness .'     Again,  let  English  readers  judge. 

4.  "  Manifest"  for  "show."  (?) 

10.  "  Were  gone  up"  =  avs(37]Gav  :  "  went  up"  =  aveftt]. 
Cf.  xvii. 

16,  17.  "Teaching"  for  "  doctrine"  =  ^r^aj?/.  The  Re- 
visers seem  to  have  assumed  that  didaxv  means  the  act  of 
teaching  {dida^i'i)  exclusively,  and  didaffnaXia  the  thing 
taught  or  doctrine.  But  is  not  this  an  arbitrary  distinction  ? 
Does  not  didaxn]  in  this  very  case  mean  the  thing  taught, 
the  doctrine,  and  not  the  act  of  teaching?  "Willeth"  = 
dtX)]  : — not  "desireth."  "  From  myself"  for  "of  myself." 
"  To  speak  of  myself"  might  be  ambiguous,  but  "  to  speak 
from  myself  is  hardly  English.     See  28  and  xi.  51. 

21.  "  Did"  for  "  have  done"=  inoirfffa.  It  is  followed  by 
"marvel"  and  not  "marvelled."  So  at  verses  23  and  29; 
compare  verse  31. 

23.  Change  of  order  needless,  and  it  enfeebles  the  Eng- 
lish.     "  Wroth"  for  "  angry"  =  x^^^'''^ — equally  needless. 

24.  "  Appearance"  for  "  the  appearance"  =  ;i:a'r  oipir :  a 
phrase, — compare  "  in  town,"  '*  in  the  city,"  and  the  French 
"  a  vue  d'oeil."    But  is  their  phrase  a  settled  English  idiom  ? 

26,  27.  "  Know"  =  s'yvGJGav  and  ol'Sajusv.  Why  not  say 
"What!"  for  jat/,  as  at  verse  41,  and  be  consistent  ?  See 
Acts  xxvi.  24,  25. 

31.  "  Hath  done"  =  enoirjae.  This  refers  to  the  fft^/2Sia, 
one  of  which  is  spoken  of  in  verses  21,  23.  "When  the 
Christ  shall  come"  for.  .  .  "cometh."  But  see  xvi.  13, 
and  cf.  viii.  28. 

38.  "  Hath  said"  =  BiTtev. 

39.  "Were  to"  for  "  should"  =  f//fAAov.     So  vi.  15  and 


ST.  JOHN.  85 

Acts  xxii.  29  ("were  about  to");  but  see  vi.  71  and  Gal. 
iii.  23.     77yf ti/iar  =  "  the  Spirit"  (no  art.)- 

40.  "  This  is  of  a  truth"  for  *'  of  a  truth  this  is"  ! 

45.   "Did  bring"  for  "  have  brought."  (?) 

51.  "A  man"  =  r6K  avdpoDTTOv^ — the  generic  article. 
See  Matt.  i.  23 ;  6  GTteipcov,  etc. 

VIII. 

9.  "  Where  she  was"  =  ovffa.  There  is  nothing  at  all  for 
"  where."  Is  this  translation  or  paraphrase.'  They  might 
have  said  "being,"  or  omitted  ovffa  altogether;  but  they 
would  have  been  quite  as  near  the  original,  even  in  their 
new  text,  if  they  had  retained  the  "standing"  of  the  A.  V. 

14.    "  Even  if"  for  "  though''^  jcav.     But  see  x.  38. 

16.  "  Yea  and  if"  for  "  and  yet  if"  =  uai  eav  .  .  .  de  = 
"but  even  if." 

17.  "Yea  and"  for  "also"  =  wa'z  .  .  .  6i=''h\\X.  also," 
or  "but  even." 

25.  "  Even  that  which  I  have  also  spoken  unto  you,"  for 
"Even  the  same  that  I  said  unto  you"=o  ri  nai  \a\(^ 
Vjxiv, — ("  what  I  am  also  speaking  to  you  [from  the  begin- 
ning" =  T7)v  a^pj^/K]). 

26.  "  Heard"  for  "  have  heard"  =  r/novaa.  (?) 

27.  "Perceived"  for  " understood"  =  f'yT'Ceja'aw.  But 
see  verse  43  and  x.  6;  see  also  iii.  10,  "understand"  for 
"  know. "      "  Spake"  =  i'Xsyev  :  just  above  "  speak"  always 

■  stands  for  XaXeoD. 

28.  "Have  lifted  up^^  =  vip go fftjTS.     Cf.  vii.  31. 

29.  "That  are  pleasing  to"  for  "that  please"  =  ra 
apeffta.     Faithfulness. 

31.  "Truly"  for  " indeed"  =  fl?A7;0G5=.  See  vi.  55;  but 
surely  aXr/Oca?  corresponds  as  well  to  the  adverb  "  indeed" 
as  a\r]6riz  did, 

33.  "We  be"=  sff/xsv  :  is  this  the  English  of  the  present 
day  ?  "  Shall  be  made"  =  yevrjaeffde,  —not  "  shall  be- 
come." Why  not  ?  Elsewhere  they  struggle  hard  to  get  in 
something  besides  "  made,"  see  ii.  9,  etc. 

34.  "  Bond-servant"  for  "  servant"  =  (5'oz}Aog.  Elsewhere 
in  text,  "  servant." 


86  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

36.  "  If  therefore  the  Son"  for  ''if  the  Son  therefore,"— 
exquisite  faithfulness.  "  Shall  make,"  see  Luke  xvi.  30, 
31,  etc.,  etc. 

39.  "  Our  father  is  Abraham"  for  "  Abraham  is  our 
father."  Oh !  wondrous  faithfulness !  The  subject  has 
the  article  in  Greek ;  but  does  not  a  proper  name  make 
some  difference.'*    Cf.  Acts  xviii.  5;  i  John  ii;  22;  v.  i. 

40.  "  Heard"  for  "  have  heard"  =  ^/foycTa".  (?) 

41.  "  Works"  for  "  deeds"  =  fp;^^.  The  Revisers  allow 
i'pyov  to  mean  "  deed,"  in  the  singular  number,  as  at  Luke 
xxiv.  19,  etc.,  etc.  ;  but  not  in  the  plural  to  mean  "deeds," 
as  cf.  Acts  vii.  22.  But  this  is  an  arbitrary  distinction; 
and  their  vigilance  has  failed  them  in  one  instance,  2  Pet. 
ii.  S.  What  would  be  unobjectionable  in  an  independent 
translation  may  be  unjustifiable  as  a  correction  of  a  former 
version. 

42.  "  Have  come"  for  "  am  come"  =  fAz/Af^o'.  See  xvi. 
28,  and  vi.  17,  note. 

44.  "A  lie"  ==ro  i/:evdo?.  In  margin,  orav  XaX}j  = 
"when  one  speaketh  ;"  cf.  Heb.  x.  28. 

45,  46.  "  The  truth"  =  TTfv  aX7]6eiav  and  aXrjdelav 
alike. 

47.  "The  words  of  God"  for  "God's  words;"  why? 
"  For  this  cause"'  for  "  therefore"  =  dta  rovTo  :  but  see  ix. 
33,  etc.,  etc.,  and  notes  at  v.  16  and  i  John  iii.  i. 

50.  "One  that  seeketh"=o  8,T]r(^v :  see  "  the  sower," 
6  GTCELfioov.  If  the  absolute  iari,  "  there  is,"  is  appealed  to 
as  making  a  difference  in  this  and  similar  cases  (as  at  v. 
45),  then  cf.  "there  shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing,"  and 
Rom.  XV.  12. 

51.  "  Word"  for  "  saying"  ==  Xoyov.  (?)  "  See"  =  3fa?- 
prfffrj :  also  at  ix.  8.  How  happened  they  to  forget  "be- 
hold" ? 

52.  "  If  a  man  keep"  =  iav  riS  rr^pT^ffij, — not  "  shall 
keep,"  and  so  at  x.  9  ;  but  see  Matt.  xxiv.  48,  and  Luke  xii. 
38,  45,  etc.,  where  they  carefully  insert  "shall." 

54.  "  Glory"  for  "  honour"  ==  S6Sa. 

55.  "If  I  should  say"  =  ear  6  ITT  CO, — "I  shall  be."  But 
see  Luke  xvi.  30,  31,  etc. 


ST.  JOHN.  87 

IX. 

5,  "I  am  the  light"  =^cy;  sijM  rod  Hoffjxov.  See  i  Tim. 
vi.  10. 

6.  '^  Thus  spoken"  =  Tavra  siTtcoy.  So  also  xi.  43;  but 
cf.  xi.  38,  and  Luke  ix.  34. 

8.  "Which  saw"  for  "  which  had  seen"  =  OcGopovvr^?, — 
not  "  beheld."     The  pluperfect  is  not  wrong. 

10.  "They  said  therefore"  for  "  therefoie  said  they."  So 
also  at  verse  16.      What  of  it  ? 

15.  "Received"  for  "had  received."  But  see  verse  18. 
Can  one  explain  why  that  should  be  pluperfect  and  not  this  ? 

17,  21.  "  In  that"  for"  that"  =  orz  .•  "  how"  for  "  by  what 
means"  =  Ttoj^.  In  the  last  case  the  A.  V.  is  plainly  right; 
and  perhaps  "because"  would  be  better  in  the  other. 
"  Opened"  for  "  hath  opened."  (?) 

23.  "  Therefore"  =  oza  tovto.   So  x.  17;  cf.  viii.  47,  etc. 

24.  "A  second  time"  for  "  again"  ^fV  devrtpov :  but 
does  not  it  mean  "again"  if  it  means  "  a  second  time".'' 
And  en  devrtpov  they  commonly  render  "  the  second 
time." 

27,  "Told  even  now"  for  "have  told  already"  =  7}f5'7^.  (?) 
See  Matt.  xiv.  15. 

30.  "The  marvel"'  for  "a  marvellous  \\nng" ^6 ocvfj-aa- 
rovl  ! 

31,  32.      "  Any  man,"  "any  one"  =  rz5. 

35.  "  Finding"  for  "  when  he  had  found"  =  fi'pcaK.  See 
vi.  II  (note) ;  xi.  28,  43,  and  Luke  xv.  5  ;  Acts  xxi.  2,  3,  4, 
etc. 

37.  "  Speaketh"  for  "  talketh"  =  Ao'Ac^;', 

38.  "  Lord,  I  believe"  =  niGrEvoo,  nvpis.  Cf.  Matt.  xxvi. 
25,  "  Is  it  I  ?  Rabbi." 

39.  "May  see"  for  "might  see"  (present);  "may  be 
made"  (not  "  may  become")  for  "  might  be  made"  (aorist). 

X. 

I.  "  Fold  of  the  sheep"  for  "  sheepfold." 
4.    "  Flath  put"  for  "  putteth"  =  \)rav  infiaX)).     But  the 
Revisers  sometimes  render  this  construction  of  the  aorist 


88  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

subjunctive  by  the  indicative  present,  as  at  Matt.  xxiv.  32, 
33,  and  Mark  xiii.  28,  29,  and  Heb.  i.  6,  etc. 
6.  Understood  =  ^'yvooaav.     See  viii.  27. 

9.  "Shall  go  in  and  go  out  and  shall  find,"  for  "shall 
go  in  and  out  and  find."  Why  not  "shall  go  out,"  and 
finish  it  ?  Which  is  the  English  idiom  }  Do  we  not  say 
"  go  in  and  out"  rather  than  "go  in  and  go  out".? 

10.  "That  he  may  steal,"  etc.,  for  "to  steal,"  etc.  = 
iva  JiXtiptj.     But  see  verse  31  and  iv.  34;  v.  36,  etc. 

12.  "A  shepherd"  for  "  the  shepherd."  But  TroijAtjv  is  a 
predicate,  and  the  hireling  was  probably  "^  shepherd," 
though  not  "  //le  shepherd."  "  Snatcheth"  for  "  catcheth  ;" 
which  does  a  wolf  do  most  naturally.? 

19.  "  Words"  for  "  sayings"  =  Xoyovi. 

21.  "Sayings"  for  "  words"  =  pj'fjuara,  and  so  at  xii. 
47,  48, — arbitrary  faithfulness.  They  freely  render  pi'/jua 
"word,"  as  at  Matt.  iv.  4;  i  Pet.  i.  24,  25,  and  here  in 
John  at  iii.  34;  v.  47;  vi.  63,  68  ;  viii.  20,  47;  xiv.  10  ;  xv. 
7  ;  xvii.  8, 

24.  "  Hold  us  in  suspense"  for  "  make  us  to  doubt"  = 
tpvxtjy  ri}x^v  ai'psi^.  This  is  from  the  margin  of  the  A.  V. ; 
but  which  is  the  simpler  and  better  translation  }  We  con- 
fess our  judgment  follows  that  of  the  forty-seven. 

28.  Is  "  pluck"  any  more  antiquated  or  unintelligible 
here  than  "  we  be"  is  at  viii.  33  ? 

32.  "  Have  I  showed"  =  i'Ssi^cv :  but 

36.  "Sanctified"  for  "hath  sanctified."  ''The  Son  of 
God;"  why  italicize  "///<?"  just  here?  See  Matt,  iv,  ^,6, 
etc.,  etc.,  etc.     They  print  "  Son"  with  a  capital. 

38.  "  Though"  ==  Hav  :  changed  to  "even  if  "  at  viii.  14. 

39.  "  Went  forth"  for  "  escaped" — out  of  their  hand. 

XI. 

3.  "  Tlie  sisters  therefore"  for  "therefore  his  sisters." 
"  The  sisters"  means  "his  sisters,"  and  "therefore"  means 
the  same  in  one  place  as  in  the  other.     But  again, 

6.  "When  therefore  he  heard"  for  "  when  he  had  heard 
therefore"  =  cas  ovv  i'/HOvo'sv  (he  abode). 


ST.  JOHN.  89 

7,  8.  "  The"  for  ''his"  (disciples);  but  see  41,  etc.,  etc. 
"But  now"  for  "of  late"  =  vvv  :  i.e.  "just  now."  We 
may  as  well  insert  "  just"  as  "but,"  and  make  current  Eng- 
lish,— if  we  must  change. 

12.  "Will  recover"  for  "shall  do  well"  =  Ga)dr']0STai 
("  will  get  well" — colloquial). 

14.    "  Is  dead"  ==  ajridave. 

19.  "Console"  for  "comfort"  =  Ttapafxvdr^Goovrai. 
But  see  verse  31.     Why  change  here  ?     "  Straightway"  ! 

20.  "When"  for  "as  soon  as"  =  a??.  "Still  sat"  for 
"sat  still"  =  €Ka6i:2,£TO.     Cf.  Acts  xvii,  14. 

22.  "  Even  now  I  know  that"  for  "  I  know  that  even 
now."  Is  not  the  true  sense  more  plainly  expressed  by  the 
latter  ? 

26.  "  Whosoever"  =  nai  6,  also  at  xvi.  2;  elsewhere 
rendered  "  every  one  who,"  and  the  A.  V.  corrected  accord- 
ingl3\     Cf.  Matt,  v,  22,  28  ;  Luke  vi.  47,  etc. 

27.  "Even  he  that  cometh"  for  "which  should  come" 
=  o  Epx6iJ.£vo^.  See  Acts  xix.  4.  Why  did  they  not  ren- 
der in  this  last  case  "that  came"  or  "  was  coming"  ? 

28.  "  Said  this"  for  "  so  said"  =  tovto  siTtovGcx  :  but  cf. 
ix.  6  ;  xi.  43,  etc. 

29.  "Went"  for  "came"  =  ypx^ro.  But  Jesus  and  not 
Mary  is  the  centre  of  our  thoughts. 

42.  "  Heardest"  for  "  hast  heard."  "Around"  for  "by." 
"  Didst  send"  for  "hast  sent."  (?) 

43.  "  Loud"  =  /.leyaX)] :  but  see  Rev.  v.  12,  note. 

44.  "  Hand  and  foot"  =  tov?  TtoSa?  uai  ra?  x^^P^''-  So 
idiom  goes  for  something;  but  see  "  the  footstool  of  his 
feet,"  and  "  two  witnesses  or  three,"  etc. 

46.   "  The  things  which"  for  "  what  things."     "  Had  done" 
=  €7roir/ff£v. 

50.  "  Take  account"  for  "consider."     Well.' 

51.  "  Should  die"  (not  "was  about  to  die  ")  ==  s'jisXXev. 
But  see  vi.  15. 

52.  "  Also,"  out  of  place.  In  Greek  it  adds  "  the  children" 
rather  than  the  "  gathering." 

53.  "That  they  might"  for  "  to"  =  zVo',  etc.,  and  so  x.  10; 
but  see  verse  55  and  iv.  34;  v.  36;  x.  32;  xi.    19,  55,  etc. 


90  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

In  the  modern  Greek  va  (for  iva)  is  the  distinctive  sign  of 
the  infinitive  mood, — or  of  the  substitute  for  it. 


XII. 

3.  "Precious"  for  "costly"  =  7i6K.vtljj.ov.  The  same 
sense,  one  in  Latin,  the  other  in  Anglo-Saxon. 

4.  The  order  changed  so  that,  in  the  English,  "which," 
that  should  refer  to  Judas,  may  by  the  ear  be  referred  to 
the  disciples; — -note  their  punctilious  carefulness  at  xi.  20. 

7.  The  margin,  or  the  old  text,  to  be  preferred.  The 
"  anointing  for  the  burial"  was  that  in  Bethany  ; — see  the 
other  Gospels. 

14.  "  Having  found"  for  "  when  he  had  found  "  =  evpaov, 
— (not  "finding"  as  at  ix.  35).  The  construction  of  the  A. 
V.  here  is  the  same  as  the  Revisers  have  elsewhere  substituted 
for  another,  see  Acts  xxi.  20,  32,  etc.,  etc. 

16.  They,  with  the  A.  V.,  render  a  pluperfect  by  "  were 
written,"  and  an  aorist  by  "  had  done." 

19.  "Behold"  for  "perceive"  =  OecopBire :  but  see  iv. 
19,  where  dsaopeco  is  rendered  "perceive."  And  then  here 
zS'f  is  rendered  "  lo"  for  "behold,"  although  " behold "  is, 
even  with  the  Revisers,  its  customary  meaning.  "Isgone" 
=  anf/Wsv, — not  "  went  away"  or  "  departed." 

21.  "  These  therefore  came"  for  "the  same  came  there- 
fore" =  ovToi  ovv.  But  at  John  i.  2,  7,  and  vii.  8,  ovroi 
is  rendered  "the  same."  "Asked"  for  "  desired"  = 
rjpc^roav.     Of.  Luke  vii.  36,  where  they  say  "  desired." 

27.   "  Is  troubled"  =  r^rapanrai. 

35.  "That  .  .  .  not"  for  "  lest"  ^  zVo" //// .•  and  so  at 
Col.  iii.  21,  ii.  4;  Phil.  ii.  27;  Heb.  xi.  28.  But  they  ren- 
der "  lest"  at  verse  40  and  Matt.  xvii.  27,  xxvi.  5  ;  i  Tim. 
ni.  7  ;  Rev.  xvi.  15,  etc.     What  is  the  clew  ? 

40.    "  Perceive"  for  "understand"  =  voy'jGoocJiv.  (?) 

42.    "  Even"  for  "also"  =JiaL     See  Luke  vii.  49  (note.) 

47,  48,  49.  "Sayings"  for  "  words"  =  pyj-uxr a ;  and 
"  spake"  for  "  have  spoken."  (?) 


ST.  JOHN:  91 


XIII. 


2.    "Already"  for  "  now"  ==  i]di] :  cf.  ix.  27. 

II,    "  That  should  betray  \\\^' =  rov  Ttocpadidovra. 

14.  "  The  Lord  and  the  Master"  for  '■'■  your  Lord  and 
Master."  Surely  this  is  harsh  English;  and  if  faithfulness 
to  the  Greek  article  required  it  here,  why  did  not  they  say 
also  in  verse  13,  "  ye  call  me  the  Master  and  the  Lord  "  .'* 
The  Greek  article  is  there  also;  but  English  idiom  seems 
to  have  prevailed. 

1,  3,  13,  14,  15.  "Had  given"  =  on  dlSoojisv :  "had 
washed,"  etc.  =  ore  i'riipav :  "have  washed"  =  el  i'vifa: 
"have  douQ'' =  7t£7toir]Ka  and  ijcohiGa :  and  "have 
given"  =  BdcsDKa.     Cf.  ch.  xvii. 

17.  "  Blessed"  for  "happy"  =  fxaKocpiO:.  (?) 

18.  "  Lifted"  for  "  hath  lifted."  (??)     "Have  chosen"  = 

22,  29.   "Spake"  and  "said"  =\Lyn. 

27.    "  That  thou  doest"  retained  for  o  noiui  :  but  see  vi. 

37- 

31.  "Is  glorified"  =  sdoSaffdrj.  "  When  therefore  he" 
for  "  therefore  when  he.  "  But  the  Revisers  often  begin  a 
clause  with  "therefore  ;"  and  it  is  a  matter  of  English  and 
not  of  Greek  construction. 

38.   "The   cock"    (no  art.).     Why    not   "no   cock    shall 

crow" 

XIV. 

2,  3.  "A  place  for  you"  =  tottov  vjAiv,and  vfj-Jv  ronov. 
Elsewhere  such  a  change  in  the  Greek  is  a  great  mystery. 

18.  "Come"  for  "will  come"  =  e'/Ojo/m'z.  Butisnotthe 
meaning  "will  come".''  and  if  "come"  means  the  same  in 
English,  what  sort  of  faithfulness  required  the  change .-' 

9.  "  Have  been"  =  ez///. 

10.  "  From"  for  "  of  "  (myself)  ;  cf.  vii.  28  and  xi.  51. 
7,  12,  19,  and  of.   XV.    20.    "My   Father   also,"    "he  do 

also,"  "ye  shall  live  also,"  "they  will  also  persecute 
you."  According  to  what  appears  to  have  been  the  punc- 
tilious rule  of  the  Revisers  for  the  construction  of  "also," 
the  first  (in  verse  7)  is  right :  but  should  not  the   others  be 


92  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE   REVISION. 

**  he  also,"   "  yc  also,"    uiid    "you   alscj"    (will   tlicy   perse- 
cute) ? 

2  1.  "lie  it  IS  i hat"  =  eneivob  eariv  6:  and-so  at  v.  39- 
ix.  37;  and  at  xiii.  26,  tuelvoi  tGTiv  cj  :  cf.  Matt.  i.  21. 
Here  we  have  the  Iriie  use  of  the  formula:  "  it  is  lie  tiiat." 
It  furnishes  a  stdjject  common  to  two  predicates.  Thus, 
if  you  would  know  who  shall  betray  me,  it  is  he  tliat  rc- 
ceiveth  the  soj);  if  you  would  know  who  loveth  nie.  it  is  lie 
that  keepcth  my  commandments;  who  is  the  Son  of  Ood? 
it  is  he  that  spcakcth  with  thee.  But  it  is  abundantly 
evident  that  no  such  reference  can  be  attached  to  the  rfj^roS" 
in  the  angelic  interprcjiation  of  the  name  Jesus  in  St.  Mat- 
tliew.  The  question,  "  Who  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins  .-*"  the  angel  coultl  not  suppose  to  be  present  in 
the  mind  of  Mary  or  of  Joseph,  nor  the  question  "  What 
else  shall  he  do?"  And  lie  could  not  have  intended  by  his 
interpretation  to  answer  any  sucli  inquiries.  lie  must 
plainly  have  intended  to  furnish,  not  a  subject  to  any  given 
predicate  ;it  all,  but  a  predicate  to  the  given  subject.  The 
(juestiou  was,  "  What  shall  this  child  be  or  do  ?"  And  the 
answer  was,  "  lie  himself  {(Xino?,  not  iHeTvo?  i()t\v  n) 
shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins;"  /.  <■•.,  "  he  shall  save 
them,  and  that  by  his  own  inherent  and  sullicient  power." 
So  that  the  rendering,  "it  is  he  that  shall  save  his  jieoplc 
from  their  sins,"  is  illogical  as  well  as  paraphrastical.  See 
also  i.  30  and  Phil.  ii.   12. 

22.  "What  is  come  to  pass?"  for  '' lunv  is  it  ?"  =  r/ 
yeyovsv  ;  ("  how  is  it  come  to  ])ass  ?  '  or,  "how  is  it 
done?"  or,  "how  does  it  happen?"  or,  "how  is  it?") 

23.  "  Our  abode"  =  fioyi/r.  Cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  27  and  i  Cor. 
XV.  3S. 

26.  "  Said"  for  "  have  said"'  =  EiTzoy  :  as  at  Matt,  xxviii. 
20.  Surely  the  A,  V.  is  right.  Did  our  Lord  refer  to  say- 
ings in  some  indefinite  past?  Did  he  not  include  all  down 
to  the  moment  when  he  was  speaking?  The  other  changes 
in  this  verse  are  entirely  unnecessary. 

27.  "Fearful"  for  "  afraid"  =  (Jf/Airrrty.  "Give  I;" 
the  order  of  the  Oreek  is  departed  from. 

28.  "Heard"    lor    "have   heard."  (?)     The   re[)etition   of 


ST.  JOHN.  93 

*' I"  in  this  verse  and  the  insertion  of  "he"  in  verse  30 
have  no  authority  in  the  Greek,  and  how  they  are  required 
by  faithfuhiess  it  is  hard  to  see.  They  seem  to  be  tlie  re- 
sult of  a  kind  of  sublimated  hypercriticism. 

XV. 

2.   "  That  beareth"  =  cpLpov  and  to  qitpov  alike. 

4.  "  Except"  =  idv  j^uj : — an  ellipsis  must  be  presumed, 
aj,  "  neither  can  it  bear  fruit  at  all ;"  for  the  meaning  can- 
not be  that,  if  it  abide  in  me  it  can  bear  fruit  of  itself . 

6.  Two  aorists  are  rendered  as  present.  "A  branch"  = 
to  xXiifxa. 

9.  Two  aorists  are  rendered  as  perfect.  "Abide"  for 
"  continue."  (?) 

15.  "No  longer"  for  "henceforth  noV  =  ovKeri^  i.e. 
"not  now"  or  "not  now  nor  in  future."  Had  he  been 
accustomed  to  call  them  servants  before?  "Heard"  for 
"  have  heard"  =i']HOvaa.  But  is  it  to  be  presumed  that  he 
had  heard  nothing  from  the  Father  since  a  certain  indefinite 
moment  in  the  past  ?  The  Revisers  cannot  have  inferred 
this  from  the  mere  aorist  form  of  the  verb,  for  they  imme- 
diately add  :   "  Have  made  known"  ^iyvaypiGa. 

17.  "May  love"  for  "love."  But  is  it  not  the  substance 
rather  than  the  end  of  tlie  commandment  that  is  referred 
to?  If.  jV«  is  appealed  to,  then  say  "  should  love,"  and  not 
"  may  love  ;"  for  it  is  a  commandment. 

19.  "Chose"  for  "have  chosen  ;"  cf.  xiii.  18. 

20.  "A"  for  "the"   (servant).       Generic  and  aphoristic, 

therefore  no  article  in  Greek.     It  may  have  either  article  in 

English,  as  we  cannot  use  it  without  any;  but  "the"  is  the 

better. 

XVI. 

4.  "Is  come"  for  "  shall  come"  =/A6?/7  .•  and  so  the 
A.  V.  at  verse  13,  But  cf.  Matt.  ix.  15;  xix.  28;  xxi.  40; 
XXV.  31  ;  and  Mark  ii.  20. 

7.  "  Go"  for  "depart."  There  is  a  different  word  in  the 
Greek  for  this  "go"  and  for  the  two  preceding  (go  away) ; 
there  antkQoo^  here  TropsvOca.  Would  not  "  depart,"  there- 
fore, be  better,  for  one  or  the  other  ? 


94  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE   REVISION. 

II.  "Hath  been  judged"  for  "is  judged."  Cf.  "It  is 
written,"  and  see  xii.  27. 

13.  "All  the  truth,"  for  "all  truth;"  why  not  then, 
"  the  Spirit  of  the  truth,"  as  well .'  "  The  things  that  are 
to  covixo"  =  ra.  epxo}.i^va  :  and  so  Rev.  i.  4,  S,  not  "the 
things  that  come."  Cf.  vi.  14  and  xi.  27.  "Is  come"  = 
orav  b\6))^  and  future  following;  but  see  vii.  31;  Matt. 
xxi.  40,  etc. 

21.  "A  woman"  =  V  yvvy  :  "is  born"  =  iysvrrjS?]^  so 
A.  V. 

22.  "  And  ye  therefore  now"  for  "  and  ye  now  therefore." 
Revising  faithfulness. 

2S.  "Am  come"  =  iXyXvda  :  elsewliere  changed  to 
"have  come,"  see  vi.  17;  viii.  42,  etc.  And  cf.  "is  come" 
at  verse  13.  "  Every  man"  =  tnaffroi.  In  such  cases  they 
generally  put  "one"  for  "  man,"  and  "  each"  for  "  every." 

XVII. 

3.  "  Him  whom  thou  didst  send,  even  Jesus  Christ." 
The  change  of  tense  and  construction  in  this  classical  pas- 
sage is  entirely  uncalled  for.  We  have  seen  that  the  Re- 
visers have  familiarly  rendered  the  Greek  aorists  by  the 
English  perfect,  and  this  very  aniarsiXa  among  the  rest. 
But  here,  at  verse  4,  they  put  "glorified"  for  "have  glori- 
fied;" at  6,  "manifested"  for  "have  manifested;"  at  8, 
"received,"  "knew,"  "believed,"  for  "have,"  etc.;  at  12, 
"perished"  for  "is  lost;"  at  14,  "hated"  for  "hath 
hated;"  at  25,  "knew"  three  times,  for  "have  known;" 
and  at  26,  "  made"  for  "have  made;"  thus  throwing  all 
these  acts  out  of  connection  with  the  (then)  present 
into  the  indefinite  past,  as  historical  events  which  had 
taken  place  at  some  particular  though  indeterminate  time, 
— as  dead  historical  facts.  Now  the  Revisers  cannot,  con- 
sistently with  their  own  translation  elsewhere,  appeal  to 
the  mere  form  of  the  Greek  aorist  as  settling  the  question 
in  their  favor.  Neither  can  they  appeal  to  the  intermin- 
gling of  Greek  perfects  with  Greek  aorists  in  this  passage  ; 
for  at  Acts  xxv.  10,  11,  "I  have  done"  is  for  a  Greek 
aorist,  an  1  "  I  have  committed"  for  a  Greek  perfect,  in  im- 


ST.  jOiiy.  95 

mediate  succession  ;  and  at  Acts  xxi.  21-24,  ^^d  Rev.  xviii. 
2,  3,  the  aorist  and  perfect  of  the  very  same  verb  are  botli 
rendered  by  the  English  perfect.  At  Pliil.  iii.  12  ;  iv.  11, 
12,  they  have  rendered  an  aorist  and  a  perfect  by  the  per- 
fect. And  even  in  this  very  gospel  at  xiii.  14,  15,  they  ren- 
der "  have  washed"  for  an  aorist,  and  "  have  given"  for  a 
perfect.  Also  at  Matt.  xxvi.  12,  13,  the  aorist  of  the  same 
verb  is  rendered  first  preterite  and  then  perfect.  The  ques- 
tion here  between  the  Authorized  Version  and  the  Revision 
must  be  settled  by  that  sort  of  judgment  of  the  context  and 
of  the  nature  of  the  case  which  any  intelligent  English 
reader  is  as  well  qualified  to  exercise  as  an  equally  intelli- 
gent Greek  scholar.  And  we  may  add  that  the  Revisers 
have  against  them  the  whole  English  Hexapla,  Luther's 
German,  De  Sacy's  French,  Diodati's  Italian,  and  almost 
all,  if  not  all  of  the  former  translations  from  the  Greek; 
and  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  no  appeal  will  lie  here  to 
any  modern  discoveries  in  Greek  grammar  or  to  any  mys- 
teries recently  laid  open  in  regard  to  the  Greek  aorist  tense. 
Cf.  further,  Mark  v.  19  ;   Heb.  xii.  4,  5,  etc. 

21,  23.  "May  all"  for  "all  may;"  "perfected"  for 
"made  perfect."     Revising  faithfulness. 

34.  Even  the  change  of  text  will  scarcely  justify  the  man- 
gling of  tills  verse,  which  is  made  so  harsh  and  discordant  to 
the  English  ear, — and  to  the  English  mind. 

XVIII. 

4.  "  Were  coming"  for  "  should  come"  =  ipxof^evac. 
Why  did  they  not  say  "came"  }  See  vi.  14  and  cf.  xvi.  13  • 
also  vi.  15  and  71. 

6,  "When  therefore"  for  "as  soon  then  as"  =  a??  oyj/ .• 
"said"  for  "had  said."  (?) 

9.  "Lost"  for  "have  lost."  (?) 

10.  "Struck"  for  "smote."  Faithfulness.  Cf.  Luke 
xxii.  50,  etc. 

13. "  High  priest"  for  "  the  high  priest" — a  predicate  ;  and 
what's  the  difference  ?  but,  "  faithfulness"  !  The  A.  V.,  for- 
sooth, was  ignorant  of  the  use  of  the  Greek  article.  Cf. 
xix.  7,  Acts  X,  42,  etc. 


g6  NOTES  OX   THE  LATE   REVISION. 

20.  "Synagogues"  for  "the  synagogue."  Their  own 
text  has  ffvvayooyfj  :  but  what  is  a  question  of  number  to 
that  of  the  article  ? 

30.  "  Evil-doer"  for  "  malefactor"  =  naxoTroio?.  Plainly 
the  word  is  here  to  be  understood  in  its  legal,  or  criminal, 
sense.  Cf.  Luke  xxiii.  32,  ;^;^,  where  they  render  xaxovpyoi 
"  malefactors." 

31.  "Yourselves"  for  "  ye"  =^  ?!»/<£?;  .•  and  so  at  xix.  6. 
Who  is  most  "faithful"  ? 

35.  "  Delivered"  for  "  have  delivered  ;"  but  immediately 
"  hast  thou  done"  renders  an  aorist. 

38.  "  Crime"  for  "  fault"  =  a:iTia  :  and  at  xix.  4,  6. 

XIX. 

2,  5.  "Garment"  for  '^  rohe"  =  {/.tar  lov — with  "pur- 
pie."   (?) 

4,  5.  "Out"  for  "forth"  ^  e^f/X^ev :  and  so  at  verses 
13,  17,  and  xxi.  3.     But  cf.  Acts  ii.  17. 

6.  "When  therefore  the  chief  priests  and  the  officers" 
for  "when  the  chief  priests,  therefore,  and  officers."  How 
momentous  these  changes ! 

10,  II.  Power  =  £^of (y/a- — not  "authority."  "Greater 
sin"  for  "the  greater  sin;"  but,  at  verse  8,  "the  more"  = 
juaXXov, — no  art. 

12.   "Release"  for  "letgo. "     But  cf.  Acts  iv.  23. 

18.  "Others"  for  "other."  But  cf.  xxi.  2;  Acts  xvii. 
18. 

19.  "There  was  written"  for  "the  writing  was"  = 
i/v  yeypajujutvov.  Now  the  simple  reader  will  not  only 
understand  the  meaning,  but  will  know  how  the  Greek 
says  it. 

31.  "On"  for  "upon,"  and  ''upon"  for  "on;"  and 
"  the  day  of  that  sabbath"  for  "that  Sabbath  day."  Ex- 
quisite and  untiring  faithfulness  !  Think  of  each  of  these 
being  solemnly  put  to  a  two  thirds  vote!  "Asked"  for 
"  besought"  =  rjpaoTJjaay  :  and  so,  verse  38 ;  but  cf.  xvi.  26. 

39.  "He  who"  for  "  which"  =0  {sX^oov)  ;  cf.  iii.  13; 
Matt.  vi.  4,  etc.,  etc. 

40.  "  Custom"  for  "  manner."  (?) 


^7^.  JOHN.  97 

42.  A  needless  and  bungling  rearrangement,  spoiling  the 
flow  and  cadence  without  improving  or  even  altering  the 
sense  of  the  passage.  Compare  this  faithfulness  with  that 
e.g.  at  Acts  xx.  25,  31.  If  the  Revisers  would  make  these 
changes  they  were  bound  to  be  consistent,  and  to  give  us 
the  Greek  construction  always. 

XX. 

3.  "Went  toward"  for  "came  to"  =  rjpxovTO  sis .-  but 
cf.  Acts  xxviii.  14.  And  why  did  they  not  say  "were 
going,"  as  at  vi.  17  ? 

5.    "Stooping,  he"  for  "He,  stooping."  (?) 

5,  6,  8.  "Entered  in"  for  "went  in'==si(jr/XBsv.  But 
cf.  Acts  xxi.  26,  "went  into"  =sifftjei.  Does  not  epxojxai 
signify  "go,"  as  well  as  sifii  ?  The  Revisers  do  not  hesitate 
so  to  render  it,  and  to  correct  the  A.  V.  at  the  same  time  ; 
see  verse  3,  and  xi.  29. 

6,  7,  12,  14.  By  comparing  these  verses  it  will  appear  that 
S-SGjptGj  means  the  same  as  (iXkTtao  or  eidov,  and  no  more, 
"  When  she  had  said"  =siTtov<ja. 

23.    "Forgive"  for  "  remit"  ==a^7rf.     Well? 

27.  "  See"  for  "behold"  =  i'ds.  "  Behold"  can  take  an 
accusative  in  English  as  well  as  "  see  ;"  and  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  i'Se  changes  its  meaning  according  to  the  case  fol- 
lowing.    But  faithfulness — to  ^eoop^oo,  "behold"! 

XXI. 

1.  "He  manifested  himself  on  this  wise"  for  "  on  this 
wise  showed  he  himself."  (?) 

2.  "Two  other"  =a\Xoi  dvo.     Cf.  xix.  18. 

3.  "Come"  for  " go"  =  fp;i;o/iarz.  Cf,  xx.  3.  "Took" 
for  "  caught"  ==i7t{a(Jay  .-  so  at  verse  10. 

4.  "Beach"  for  ^^  shove"  =  aiyiaXov.  It  was  certainly 
a  "shore,"  whether  it  was  properly  a  "  beach"  or  not. 

8,  "Of  fishes"  =  rcSr  ix^vgjv  .-  but  see  "the  weeping 
and  gnashing," 

9,  "  Got  out  upon  the  land,"  for  "  were  come  to  land"= 
arre/Sr^ffav  sis  rrjv  yfjv — simply  they  "landed,"  or  "had 
landed." 


98  A'OTES  ON   THE   LATE  J^E VISION. 

12.  "Break  your  fast,"  for  ^^  diwQ'^  =  apiffr>]G(XTS,  i.e. 
"dine"  or  "  breakfast;'"  and  the  same  at  verse  15.  The  Re. 
visers  translate  apiGtov,  "dinner,"  at  Matt.  xxii.  4  ;  Luke 
XI.  38,  and  xiv.  12  ;  and,  at  Luke  xi.  37,  they  transhite 
apKjTrjai],  "dine."  Indeed,  apiarov  Ims  no  more  to  do 
with  "breaking  a  fast"  tlian  every  meal  must  have,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case;  and  our  very  word  "dine,"  from 
'''' diner,"  '■'' disner,"  is  not  unlikely  of  the  same  origin  as 
"  dcje/i?ier,"  to  breakfast.  As  to  the  time  of  the  day  at  which 
this  meal  was  taken,  we  cannot  say  exactly  at  what  time  it 
was.  It  seems  likely  it  was  early.  But  we  cannot 
make  much  account  of  the  proper  hour  of  "  dining,"  when 
a  London  dinner  may  be  taken  at  from  eight  to  twelve 
o'clock  at  night. 

12,  24,  "Inquire"  for  ''  ?isk"  =  tt,eTcyG(xi :  "  bearcth  wit- 
ness" for  " testifieth;"  "witness"  for  "testimony."  Con- 
sequential. 


ACTS. 


2.  II,  22.  "Received  up"  for  "taken  up"  =  ai^f/Vz/fpS^?^  .- 
and  so  the  A.  V.  at  Mark  xvi.  19.  The  word  may  be  ren- 
dered either  way.  From  the  Latin  it  is  '■'"assumption' — 
a  taking  up  or  taking  to  one's  self.  At  verse  9  they  had 
better  have  said  "  lifted  up' '  for  "  taken  up"  =  eTtiip^i].  Cf. 
Matt.  xvii.  S  ;  wiicre  they  so  render. 

3.  "  Proofs"  for  "  infallible  proofs"  =  rinfxi]pia.  Lex., 
"sure  signs  or  tokens,"  "demonstrative  proofs." 

4.  "Charged"  for  "  commanded  "  =  7r^^p?/;/;/£rA£;'.  So 
also  at  iv.  iS;  v.  28,  40;  xvi.  18,  etc.,  etc.  But  cf.  xvii.  30; 
Mark  viii.  6;  Luke  ix.  21;  viii.  29  (and  compare  this  last 
with  Acts  xvi.  18),  etc.,  etc.      Faithfulness  illustrated. 

6.  "  They  therefore,  when  they  were  come  together, 
asked,"  for  "  when  they  therefore  were  come  together^ 
they  asked."  But  cf.  again  Matt.  viii.  12;  ix.  12;  xi.  2; 
xii.  24;  Luke  ix.  47;  xxiii.  6,  8;  John  xxvi.  14,  etc.  See 
Luke  vii.  4  (note). 


ACTS.  99 

II.  "  Which  was  received  up"  for  "which  is  taken  up"  = 
6  avaXrjqjSeU.  But  cf.  Matt.  ii.  2,  o  r£^'(9f/5  ="  he  that  is 
born,"  etc.,  etc. 

13.  Why  did  they  not  say  "a  mountain,  even  the  mountain 
which  "  ?     Cf.  Gal.  ii.  20. 

14,  19.   Order  changed  contrary  to  the  Greek. 

16.  "  It  was  needful  that  ....  should  be"  for  "must 
needs  have  been"  =  i'Sei.  But  cf.  John  iv.  4  ;  Heb.  ix.  26, 
etc. — "  must  needs,"  "must." 

17.  "  His  portion"  ==  rov  KXrjpov.  Elsewhere,  in  similar 
cases,  they  often  carefully  put  "the"  for  "his.' 

18.  "Received"  for  "  obtained  "=> //lorjf  {not  i'Xa ft  s). 
"  Obtained  "  for  "  purchased  "  =  iurtjaaro.  (?) 

19.  The  order  is  here  changed  without  need  and  contrary 
to  the  original.  Truly  these  Revisers  are  hard  to  please. 
If  the  A.  V.  departs  from  the  order  of  the  Greek  they 
change  it ;  if  it  follows  the  order  of  the  Greek  they  change 
it, — and  always  from  sheer  "faithfulness." 

"  Akeldama"  for  "Aceldama."  Anywhere  else  one  would 
call  this  pedantry;  here  it  is  only  "faithfulness."  The 
English  has  become  accustomed  to  the  Latin  spelling  of 
such  names  ;  and  what  is  gained  by  change?  Besides,  one 
who  clmnges  is  bound  to  be  consistent.  Why  then  did 
they  not  say  "  Kephas"  ? 

21.  "  Of  the  men  therefore  ....  of  these"  for  "  where- 
fore of  these  men."  The  A.  V.  gives  the  simple  English  con- 
struction, and  that  quite  as  near  the  Greek  as  the  Revision  is. 
And  how  much  does  "wherefore"  differ  from  "therefore"? 
In  the  original  there  is  for  "  these"  only  an  article  ;  and  yet 
the  Revisers  by  their  dislocation  render  it  emphatic. 
"  Went  in  and  went  out"  for  "  went  in  and  out ;"  which  is 
the  English  for  the  repeated  or  customary  action  ? 

23.  "  Put  forward' '  for  "  appointed"  =  i'ari^aav.  Cf.  xix. 
2)2, ;  also  Matt.  xxvi.  15. 

24.  "  The  one"  =  tva.     Cf.  Matt.  vi.  24  ;  Luke  xvi.  13. 

25.  "The  place  in  this  ministry  and  apostleship,  from 
which,"  for  "part  of  this  ministry  and  apostleship,  from 
which"  ==  ror  ronov  (old  text  HXijpov)  T}j5  diaKOviaz 
Tavr?]^  7ia\  aTtofftoXtji  acp  (old  text   eS)  ?/£.     Here"min- 


lOO  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

istry,"  etc.,  is  in  the  genitive  (not  "  in,"  therefore,  but  "  of"), 
and  "from  which"  should  refer  not  to  "the  place,"  but  to 
"ministry,"  etc.;  so  that  the  new  version  would  be  mis- 
understood, for  it  grammatically  means  "  the  place  which." 
This  is  the  effect  in  English  of  the  article  introduced  from 
their  new  text  before  "place." 

II. 

2.  "  Of  the  rushing  of  a  mighty  wind,"  for  "  of  a  rushing 
mighty  wind"'  =  ^fpo/YfV?/?  nvoi}^  f^iaia?.  Here  the  A.  V. 
is  literally  exact  to  a  hair's  breadth.  What  is  the  key  to 
the  Revisers'  "faithfulness"? 

3.  "Parting  asunder"  ior  ^^ cloven'' =  dia  1x8 piS,o)j.evai. 
Here  the  sense  remains  substantially  the  same.  The  only 
question  is,  whether  the  participle  is  to  be  conceived  of  as 
middle  or  passive.  The  Revisers  take  the  former  and  the 
A.  V.  the  latter  ;  but  the  Revisers  have  themselves  rendered 
it  as  passive  at  Luke  xi.  17,  18  ;  xii.  52,  53.  The  Septuagint 
use  it  as  middle  ;  but  its  active  form  and  use  are  found 
both  in  the  classical  and  N.  T.  Greek  ;  see  verse  45. 

6,  8.  Why  did  they  not  say,  after  the  Greek,  "  they,  every 
man,"  "  how  do  we,  every  man,"  and  so  avoid  the  ambiguity 
in  the  latter  verse  ?  That  might  have  been  an  object  worthy 
of  their  revisional  faithfulness. 

11.  "  Mighty  works"  for  "  wonderful  works"  =  /ASyaXeia 
(=  "grand  or  magnificent  things").  But  greatness  is  no 
more  nearly  related  to  might  than  to  wonder.  Cf.  8vva}i8i<i-, 
"mighty  works." 

12.  "  Perplexed"  for  "  in  doubt"  =  dnjTCopovv.  Which 
is  the  simpler  and  the  more  strictly,  and  even  etymologi- 
cally,  correct?     So  at  v.  24  and  x.  17. 

14.  "Spoke  forth,  saying,"  for  "said"  =  aTtsqjdey^ato 
(=  "  said  plainly"), 

17.  "  Pour  forth"  for  "pour  out"=  fw^fGJ.  But  see  x.  45 
and  cf,  John  ii.  15  ;  xix.  4,  5,  etc. 

26.  "My  heart  was  glad  and  my  tongue  rejoiced"  for 
"  my  heart  did  rejoice  and  my  tongue  was  glad."  How 
wondrous  nice  ! 


ACTS.  loi 

28.  "  Gladness"  for  "joy"  =  ft^^po^Ti^K?/.  "  Madest"  for 
•'  hast  made."  (?) 

32.  "  Did  raise  up"  for  "hath  raised  up."  (?) 
2,6.  "Let  all  the  house  of  Israel   therefore"  for  "there- 
fore let,"    etc.      ndi   ozwoS'  =  "all  the  house;"    cf.    Eph. 
iii.  13. 

46.  "At  home"  for  "from  house  to  house"  =  ^far' 
oiKOv  (so,  marg.  of  A.  V.) ;  but  just  above  and  below, 
"  day  by  da,y'^  =  Ha^   7) fxl pcxv  ==  A.  V.  "  daily." 

47.  "  Those  that  were  being  saved"  for  "  such  as  should  be 
saved"  =  rot);  o'cy^oyUfVoL'S  =  "  those  that  were  saved"  or 
"that  should  be  saved."  So  also  they  render  at  i  Cor.  i. 
18;  2  Cor.  ii.  15.  But  cf.  Luke  xiii.  23,  "they  that  be 
saved;"  also,  John  xiii.  11,  "him  that  should  betray  him" 
=  rov  Ttapadidovra. 

III. 

6.  "That"  ^  rot5TO — not  "this." 

12.  "Fasten  ye  your  eyes"  for  "look  ye  so  earnestly" 
=  arsvi8,Ere.      But  cf.  i.  10;  xxiii.  i — "  looking  stedfastly." 

13.  "  Release"  for  "  let  go."     Cf.  iv.  23. 

14.  "  Asked  for"  for  "  desired"  =  7jrr/aaffS^e.  Cf.  Luke 
vii.  36. 

16.  "Hath  made  strong;"  "hath  given;"  both  for 
aorists. 

18.  "Foreshowed"  for  "before  had  shewed"  =  7rpoKa'- 
rrjyyeike.     "  Fulfilled"  for  "  hath  fulfilled" — aorist.  (?) 

21.  "Spake"  for  "hath  spoken" — aorist. 

22,23.  "To  him  shall  ye  hearken"  for  "him  shall  ye 
hear"  =  aHovffsffOe.  If  there  is  any  ambiguity  in  the  A.  V., 
there  is  the  same  in  the  Greek.  "Speak"  for  "say"  = 
XaXjfffrj.  (?) 

24.  "  Them  that  followed  after"  for  "those  that  follow 
after' '  =  rcov  KaOe^tj<;.  The  distinction  is  not  in  the  Greek 
at  all  events — either  that  of  the  tense,  or  of  the  "  them"  and 
"  those."     "  Told"  for  "  have  (fore)  told."  (?) 

IV. 

2.  "  Sore  troubled"  for  "  grieved"  =  6'za'7royof//froz.  (?) 
"Proclaimed"  for  "  preached"  =  KarayyeXXeiv.  (?) 

GIVEN    TO 


tt»»H0tJlJUJ.ttl>l...-.  • 

1.-    ^HOIL 


I02  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE   REVISION. 

13.  "  And  in  none  other  is  there  salvation"  for  "neither 
is  there  salvation  in  any  other."  "Neither  is  there  any 
other  name"  for  "  there  is  none  other  name."  In  the  last 
their  text  is  ovd^  for  ovtb. 

13.  "  Had  perceived"  for"  perceived"  =HaraXaft6pi£voi. 
Cf.  the  reverse  change  at  John  ix.  35,  etc.,  etc.  Cf.  XafSaov 
at  Matt.  XXV.  20. 

14.  "Seeing"  for  "beholding"  =/5Af;roKrf5  (^''look- 
ing at").  Cf.  Matt.  vii.  3  ;  Luke  vi.  41  ;  i  Cor.  x.  18;  Col. 
ii.  5;  Rev.  xyii.  8,  in  all  which  they  render  "behold;"  also 
Rev.  xi.  9;  xviii.  9,  where  they  put  "look  upon"  for  "see;" 
and  I  Cor.  i.  26,  where  they  put  "behold"  for  "see"  ! 

16,  22.  "  Miracle"  =  oijfx^iov.  It  is  difficult  to  dispense 
with  the  received  English  words  when  gne  is  making  an 
English  translation  ; — "  Si  furca  expellas." 

18.  "Charged"  for  "  commanded."  See  i.  4  (note) ;  and 
I  Tim.  i.  3  (note). 

20.  "Saw  and  heard"  for  "  have  seen  and  heard."  (?) 
"Was  wrought"  for  "was  showed''  ==iyey6v£i  (=  "  had 
been  done,"  see  verse  30). 

23.  "  Being  let  go"  =  anokvQivrei  {==  "  having  been  let 
go").  But  see  iii.  13  and  John  xix.  12  ("released");  and 
see  verse  13  for  the  tense. 

24.  "And  they,  when  they  heard  it,"  for  "and  when  they 
heard  it,  they."  See  i.  6  (note).  "The  heaven  and  the 
earth,  the  sea,"  for  "heaven  and  earth,  the  sea."  See  Rev. 
ix.  1  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  35,  etc. 

28.  "Foreordained"  for  "determined  before"  =^7tpooo- 
piffe.  Which  is  the  more  faithful  to  the  very  etymology 
of  the  Greek  word  ?  "To  come  to  pass"  for  "to  be  done" 
=  yevt<jdai.  Cf.  verse  30,  where  they  render  yivaaOai 
"to  be  done."     Does  the  tense  change  the  sense? 

29.  "Look  upon"  for  "  behold"  =  fTTzcJf.  What's  the 
difference  ?  But  the  Revisers  have  a  consequential  rever- 
ence for  deojptoj  before  their  eyes. 

30.  "  While  thou  stretchest  forth"  for  "  by  stretching 
forth"  =  eV  rep,  Ji.r.X.  Why  not  say,  "in  stretching  forth"  ? 

35.  "Each"  for  "every  man"  =  eKafftK).  Cf.  John 
xvi.  28. 


ACTS.  103 

36.  "  Son"  for  "  the  son."  But  what's  the  difference  in 
a  title?  See  their  own  usage  at  i.  19;  Matt.  iii.  3;  John 
xix.  19,  etc.  Would  they  not  have  done  better  to  have  re- 
tained "  consolation"  in  the  text,  and  relegated  "exhorta- 
tion" to  the  margin.'*  But  this  is  a  question,  not  of  Greek 
authority,  but  of  private  judgment.  The  decision  sug- 
gested has  the  A.  V.  to  sustain  it. 

V. 

17.  "Jealousy"  for  "  indignation"  =(27/Ao?;. 

iS.  "  Public  ward"  for  "  the  common  prison"  =  r?/p/;a'fz 
dt^juoffia.  This  is  nearer  the  Greek  etymology,  but  less 
intelligible  in  English. 

20.  "  Go  ye  and  stand"  for  "go  stand."  No  vjAei?  (ye) 
and  no  xai  (and)  in  the  Greek;  for  the  uai  in  the  text 
connects  "  speak"  and  not  "stand"  with  "go."  Faithful- 
ness? 

31.   "Did  exalt"  for  "  hath  exalted."  (?) 

;^2.  "They,  when  they  heard,"  for  "when  they  heard, 
they."      See  i.  6  (note). 

43.   "At    home"  =  WOT     oihov,    for   "in    every    house.'' 

But   H(xr  oiHOVi  they  render  "  from  house  to  house,"  Acts 

XX.    20;  and  ev  olkco  they  render  "at   home,"    i  Cor.   xi. 

34,  and  xiv.  35. 

VI. 

"  Therefore"  for  "wherefore" — needless  change.  "  May 
appoint"  =  naraGri]60}XEv  (future). 

4.  Why  this  change  ?  TI poajiaprepr) a o f^sv  m^iy  as  well 
mean  "  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to,"  as  "  we  will 
continue  stedfastly  in." 

7.  "  Exceedingly"  for  "  greatly"  =  aqjodpa.  Exceeding 
faithful ! 

15.  "  Fastening  their  eyes"  for  "looking  stedfastly"^ 
areyi<SavTai.  But  see  vii.  55  and  xxiii.  i,  where  they  ren- 
der "  looking  stedfastly"  !    And  whence  the  "  eyes"  ? 

VII. 

4.  "  Wherein"  =  fz?  ?/r,  not  "  whereinto." 

5.  "  In  possession"  for  "  for  a  possession"  =  eii  naraff- 
X^Giv.  (?)     See  verse  45  and  the  Septuagint. 


I04  NOTES   OAT    THE   LATE  REVISION. 

20.  "  Three  months  in  liis  father's  house'''  for  "in  his 
father's  house  three  months.'  Tlie  English  naturally  puts 
the  designation  of  place  before  that  of  time  ;  but  the  Revisers 
are  apt  to  follow  the  Greek. 

22.  What  need  of  inserting  "  he"  ? 

28.  The  "wilt"  and  the  "didst"  of  the  A.  V.  are  idio- 
matic English.     For  the  former  see  John  v.  21,  40. 

35.  Why  did  they  not  say  here  "  an  angel's  hand,  evoi  the 
angel  that  appeared"  ?  There  is  no  article  in  the  Greek 
till  we  come  to  the  participle.  Cf.  2  Tim.  ii.  24,  and  par- 
ticularly Gal.  ii.  20  ;  also  cf.  Rev.  viii.  4,  and  x.  8,  10,  for 
the  articles. 

44.  "Appointed"  for  "had  appointed."   Cf.  2  Cor.  viii.  5. 

VIII. 

5.  "  Proclaimed' '  for  "  preached"  =  ha'ipvGGSv  .-  so  also 
at  ix.  20.     But  cf.  XV.  21  ;   i  Cor.  i.  23  ;  Phil,  i.  15,  etc. 

23.  "Art  in"  =  el?  ovra .-  and  note  articles. 

39.  "When  they  came"  for  "when  they  were  come." 
Whether  in  English  we  should  use  the  preterite  or  the  plu- 
perfect in  such  cases  is  not  determined  by  the  Greek  tense, 
but  depends  upon  whether  we  conceive  the  two  actions 
compared  to  be  synchronous  or  consecutive.  It  is  not 
Greek  scholarship  therefore,  whether  ancient  or  modern, 
that  is  to  decide  the  question,  but  good  common  sense. 
Cf.  the  translation  of  the  Revisers  at  xi.  2,  "was  come" 
(but  see  Gal.  ii.  11,  12);  Mark  vii.  17,  "was  entered;" 
Luke  xxii.  14,  "  was  come"  (but  see  John  iv.  45,  "came")  ; 
John  xiii.  3,  "  was  gone  ;"   xxi.    15,   "  had  broken  ;"   Rev. 

V.  8,  "  had  taken." 

IX. 

3.  "  Out  of  heaven"  =  in  rov  oupavov.  "The  earth" 
immediately  follows.  For  the  article  cf.  iv.  24  ;  vii.  49  ;  x. 
II,  etc.  ;  and  for  the  prepositicm  cf.  xi.  5  ;  Matt.  xvi.  i  ; 
xxviii.  2  ;  John  iii.  31  ;  Rev.  viii.  10,  ix.  i  ;  x.  4,  8  ;  xi.  12  ; 
xiv.  2,  13,  etc. 

7.  "  Beholding"  for  "  seeing"  =  OsGopovrrs?.  But  it  is 
here  opposed  to  "  hearing  ;"  and  cf.  xix.  26  and  xxi.  20, 
where  they  render  the  same  verb  by  "  see.  ' 


ACTS.  105 

II.  "  To  the  street"  for  "into"  =  fVr/,  i.e.  "upon"  or 
"along."     "Into"  is  nearer  than  "to." 

13.  "  Did"  for  "  hath  done."  (?) 

14.  "  Upon"  for  "  on  ;"  but  cf.  verse  21.  Who  can  keep 
up  with  tlie  versatilities  and  niceties  of  revisional  "  faithful- 
ness" ? 

15.  Why  did  they  not  say,  "  Gentiles  and  kings,"  etc.  } 
There  is  no  article  in  the  Greek. 

18.  "As  it  were"  for  "  as  it  had  been"  =  (ipaf/.  So  also  at 
X.  II  ;  but  cf.  vi.  15,  where  they  render  "  as  it  had  been." 

20.  The  order  needlessly  changed.  "  Proclaimed"  for 
"  preached"  =  SKrjpvGffsv.     See  viii.  5   (note). 

27.  Order  changed.     What  trifling  !     Cf.  xv.  2,  xx.  25,  etc. 

31.   "  Being  edified"  for  "  and  was  (were)  edified."  (?) 

34.  "  Healeth"  for  "maketh  whole."  Cf.  xiv.  9.  AVhat 
is  the  logical,  or  etymological,  or  practical  difference  be- 
tween "  healing"  and  "making  whole"  ? 

41.  For  the  change  of  construction  compare  this  and  x. 
8,  17  with  xxvi.  31,  etc.,  etc. 

X. 

I.  "  Byname"  for  "called"  =  ovojuari  .•  also  viii.  9.  But 
this  is  not  adhered  to  elsewhere.  Better  say  "  named,"  as 
the  Revisers  do  at  Luke  i.  5,  v.  27,  x.  ^8,  xvi.  20,  xxiii.  50  ; 
Acts  V.  I,  34,  ix.  12,  xxiii.  36,  etc.,  etc. 

4.  Construction  changed  without  improvement.  The 
seeitig  was  the  cause  of  ih.Q  fearing. 

^.  "Fetch"  for  "call  for"  =  fxerocTtefxipai :  but  see 
verses  22,  29,  xxiv.  26,  and  cf.  xvi.  37.  To  "  send  for"  and 
to  "fetch"  are  commonly  different  things;  and  after 
"  send,"  already  used,  repetition  was  unnecessary,  and 
"  call  for"  is  near  enough  to  the  sense. 

8.    "  Rehearsed"  for  "  declared"  =  eBrjyrjffai-ievo^.  (?) 

10.  "Hungry"  for  "very  hungry"  =  TcpoanBivoz.  (?) 
"  Desired  to  eat"  for  "  would  have  eaten."  But  cf.  xiv.  13, 
where  they  render  "  would  have." 

II.  "  The  heaven"  for  "heaven;"  but  cf.  verse  16  and 
xi.  5,  9,  10,  where  "  heaven"  is  rendered  without  the  article 
which  is  in  the  Greek. 


Io6  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

30.     'Apparel"  for  "clothing""  =  iaSrjri.  (!) 

33.  "  Have  been"  for  "  are"  (commanded).  But  see  "  it 
is  written,"  etc.,  etc.,  and  especially  John  xii.  27. 

42.  "  To  be  the  judge;"  no  article  in  the  Greek.  Cf. 
John  xviii.  13. 

45.  "  Poured  out ;"  but  cf.  ii.  17,  where  they  correct  the 
A.  V.  and  render  "pour  forth." 

XI. 

5,  6.  "From  heaven"  and  "of  the  heaven"  ^  rov  ovpa- 
vov :  and  "fowls"  for  their  "birds"'  elsewhere.  9.  "  A 
voice  out  of  heaven,"  and  so  at  Matt.  iii.  17  ;  Mark  i.  11  ; 
Luke  iii.  33  ;  but  at  Rev.  x.  4,  8,  xi.  13,  xiv.  2,  13,  they  say 
"a  voice  from  lieaven." 

14.  The  repelition  of  "  thou"  here  and  at  xvi.  31  is  neither 
required  nor  authorized  by  its  being  expressed  in  the  Greek. 
"We  cannot  follow  the  Greek  construction,  but,  if  we  would 
bring  out  the  number  of  the  Greek  verb,  we  might  say, 
*'  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  all  thy  house." 

XII. 

10.  "The  first"  ==  Ttpchti-jv :  "  the  second"  =  dsvrlpav. 
Cf.  Matt.  xxii.  39. — No  article. 

21.  Construction  changed  for  the  worse,  and  not  required 
by  the  slight  change  in  the  text.  "  The  throne"  for  "  his 
throne"  is  an  inconsistency. 

22.  "The  voice  of  a  God"  =  Sfot*  cpoov?).  Cf.  Matt, 
xxvii.  54,  margin  (note) ;    say  "  the  son  of  a  God." 

XIII. 

12.  "Teaching"  ior  '''■  docir ine"  =  6 16 ex x\h — here  liable 
to  be  misunderstood. 

19,  20.  The  text  which  the  Revisers  have  adopted  here  is 
difficult  to  reconcile  with  accepted  facts. 

36.  The  margin  is  better:  "served  his  generation." 
There  ought  to  be  very  cogent  reasons  for  abolishing  the 
Scripture  authority  for  this  phrase.  The  antiquated  "  fell 
on  sleep"  is  retained.  May  not  unlearned  readers  stumble 
over  it } 


ACTS.  107 

46.  "Spake  out  boldly  and  said"  for  "  waxed  bold  and 
said"  =  7tapp7](jiaGa}A.evoi  emov.  But  cf.  i  Thes3.  ii.  2, 
where  they  say  "waxed  bold." 

XIV. 

3.  "Bare  witness"  for  "gave  testimony"  =  fiaprvpovvri 
— consequential.     "  To  be  done"  =  yiveadai. 

5.  "  Onset"  for  "  assault"  =  6p}xi).  This  is  a  new  word  ; 
is  ic  needed?  "  Treat  shamefully^'  for  "  use  despitefully" 
=  vlip'iGai.  The  A.  V.  is  the  more  accurate.  There  is  no 
"  shame' '  in  the  word  at  all.  Cf.  Luke  xx.  1 1 ,  where  "  handle 
shamefully"  is  for  aTifxtfaVxYTS?,  and  rightly. 

6.  Tiie  change  of  construction  makes  the  sense  ambiguous, 
for  Lycaonia  might  be  supposed  to  be  the  name  of  a  city 
as  well  as  Derbe  and  Lystra.  The  Revisers  do  not 
always  follow  the  Greek  ;  as  cf.  Acts  xx.  25. 

9.  "Fastening  his  eyes  upon"  for  "  stedfastly  behold- 
ing" =  areviaai.     Cf.   vii.   55,    xxiii.  i;  2   Cor.   iii.  7,  13. 

13.  "Whose  temple'  for  "which"  =  rob.  This  is  a 
paraphrase  instead  of  a  translation,  and,  besides,  it  expresses 
what,  from  the  text,  is  at  least  uncertain  as  a  matter  of 
fact.  They  should  have  said,  "the  priest  of  the  Jupiter 
which  was,"  etc.  It  may  have  been  a  statue  and  not  a 
temple  of  Jupiter  which  was  before  the  gate.'' 

15.  "The  heaven,"  etc.     See  iv.  24,    (note). 

19.  Construction  of  "  thither"  .?  Did  faithfulness  require 
the  omission  of "  certain  '  .?  It  was  confessedly  not  expressed 
in  the  original. 

26.  "  Had  fulfilled"  for  "  fulfilled"  =  inXi^pooGav.  (?)  In 
verse  23  the  change  of  "believed"  to  "had  believed" 
is  right. 

XV. 

2.  "Certain  other  of  them."  Cf.  Luke  x.  i.  "Should 
go  up"  is  not  in  the  order  of  the  Greek  ;  cf.  ix.  27. 

10.  "That  ye  should  put"  for  "  to  put."  The  latter  is 
literal  from  the  Greek,  and  is  idiomatic  English  as  well  as 
quite  intelligible  here.  Cf.  Heb.  vi.  10.  The  Revisers  often 
put  the  infinitive  instead  of  the  construction  with  iva  {that) 
in  the  original,  as  at  John  iv.  34  ;  v,  36  ;    xi.  19,  55. 


io8  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

11.  Here  the  construction  is  changed,  though  the  A.  V. 
follows  the  order  of  the  Greek. 

1 6.  What  need  of  the  extra  "  I"  .' 

21.  "  Preach  him"  =  Ki]pv66CD  avrov.    Cf.  viii.  5. 

22.  "Seemed  good"  for  "it  pleased."  (?) 

22,  25.  "To  choose  men"  for  "chosen  men"  =  En\EB,a- 
fx^vov<;  avdpai.  The  A.  V.  "faithfully"  follows  the  Greek 
construction,  and  if  there  is  any  ambiguity  in  the  English 
there  is  the  same  in  the  Greek. 

23.  It  should  be  {a  la  grccque),  "The  apostles  and  the 
elders,  brethren."  For  "apostles  and  elders,"  cf.  verses  2 
and  22,  and  xvi.  4. 

20  and  39.  Compare  these  verses  for  the  use  of  the  article 
in  Greek. 

36.  "  Proclaimed"  for  "  preached."  (?)  "  How  they  fare" 
for  "how  they  do"  =  ttoSj  ^'x^vai.  (?) 

XVI. 

3.  "Would  liave"  ==  i]6l\7]ffev,  and  so  at  xiv.  13.  But 
cf.  Luke  xix.  14. 

12.  Construction  bungling.  The  A.  V.  is  nearer  the 
Greek  after  all,  only  putting  "that"  for  r//b.  They  make 
"  the  first"  =  TtpoDtf] .-  and  so,  marg.  of  A.  V. 

37.  "Men  that  are  Romans"  for  "being  Romans"  = 
Poj/xaloui  VTtdpx'^^'^^^-  "  Cast  out"  for  "  thrust  out  ;" 
"  bring"  for  "fetch."  (?) 

39.  "  Asked  them  to  go  away  from  the  city"  for  "  desired 
them  to  depart  from  the  city."  (The  text  for  "depart"  is 
changed  from  e'c^eXOsIr  to  arreXflelv  aTTO.)  What  a  won- 
drous elevation  and  vigor  of  style  ; — "  asked  them  to  go 
away  from  the  city"  !  At  the  end  of  the  chapter  they  say 
they  "departed;"  and  at  John  xii.  36,  ihcy  render  an  eXdoav 

"  departed." 

XVII. 

2,  "Sabbath  d'^ys' =  ^ a f^fSar a.  Elsewhere  they  have 
omitted  the  "  day." 

3.  "It  behoved"  for  "must  needs  have"  =/(Jei.  So 
Luke  xxiv.  26  ;  but  cf.  Mark  xiv.  31  ;  John  iv.  4  ;  Heb.  ix. 
36,  etc.,  etc.     "The  Christ"  for  "Christ/'  (?) 


ACTS.  109 

5.  "  Rabble"  =  ayopaioi==  "  hangers  on  about  the  mar- 
ket." For  the  change  of  construction,  compare  Matt.  xxvi. 
26,  27,  etc.  They  have  no  more  right,  in  faithfulness,  to 
consult  variety  in  rendering  the  same  constructions,  than  in 
rendering  the  same  words. 

13.  "Proclaimed"  for  "preached."   (?) 

16.  "  Fidl  of  idols"  for  "given  to  idolatry"  ^  Kta^rf/- 
6oo\ov.  So  the  A.  V.  in  margin.  Whose  judgment  is  to  be 
preferred  ? 

18.  "  Would"  for  "  will"  =eiXei.  (?)  "  Other  some"  — 
archaism   retained,    instead   of  simply  saying,  "  others"  = 

01  Se. 

22.  "  Somewhat  superstitious"  for  "  too  superstitious"== 
dei(}i6aijj.ov£<jTepovz.  Is  this  the  sense  of  the  comparative 
absolute — softened    even  below   the   simple  positive  ?     Cf. 

2  Pet.  i.  19  ;   Heb.  xiii.  19,  23  ;  John  xiii,  27  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  17. 

23.  "  An  unknown  God"  for  "  The  unknown  God."  Cf. 
Luke  xxiii.  33  ;  John  xix.  17  ;  Acts  i.  19  ;  Heb.  xii.  22,  and 
names  and  titles  generally.  Did  the  Athenians  dedicate 
their  altar  to  any  one  among  the  "  unknown  gods,"  or 
rather  to  some  definite,  particular,  though  as  yet  "  unknown, 
God" — one  of  whom  they  had  a  sort  of  presentiment  ? 

XVIII. 

15.  "Am  not  minded  to  be"  for  "will  be  no."  The 
A.  V.  gives  the  sense  of  the  Greek  simply,  accurately,  and 
without  ambiguity. 

20.  "Asked"  for  '■^  dQsir&d"  =  i poor  govt  gov.  At  Luke 
vii.  36,  they  render  the  word  "  desired." 

24.  Order  changed  for  the  Greek  ;  but  the  A.  V.  has  the 
logic. 

25.  "Carefully"  for  "  diligently"  =  «r;</)z/?G5?  .•  and  26, 
for  "perfectly."  Should  these  not  be  "  clearly"  in  verse  25, 
and  "  more  accurately"  in  the  26th  ? 

XIX. 

4.  "That  should  come"=  ror  spxofjisvov — not  "that 
came."     Cf.  Luke  vii.  20,  etc. 

22.  "While"  for  "  season"=;t;/3oi'or.   (?) 


no  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE   REVISION. 

26.  "  See"=  9f  i^psTrf,  with  "  liear  ;"  but  cf.  ix.  7,  where 
they  render  "  behold.  ' 

29.  The  Greek  order  here  is  no  improvement  to  the  Eng- 
lish, and  makes  no  change  in  the  sense.  "  Was  minded  to" 
for  "would  have"  =  /?of Ao/^fros  with  aorist.  (?) 

32.  "  In  confusion"  for  "  conimo.^'  =GvyK^X'^}^^'^V  ^  plu" 
perfect  passive;  for  which,  "was  confused"  may  stand, 
but  "  was  in  confusion"  may  not.  The  Revisers,  it  seems, 
feel  at  liberty  to  depart  from  the  strict  Greek  construction 
when  they  think  they  can  correct  the  A.  V.  in  so  doing. 
But  note  their  scrupulosity  at  verse  29  and  at  xviii.  24. 
''Were  Qoxvi€'  ^^eXifyvdewav  :  elsewhere,  we  have  seen, 
they  render  "  had  come."  Did  faithfulness  require  this  di- 
versification ? 

35.  "Temple  keeper"  for  "  worshipper"  =  •KfGLJKopoT'. 
This  is  from  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.,  and,  but  for  a  spice 
of  pedantry,  might  have  been  left  there. 

38.  "That"  for  "  which."  Did  faithfulness  require  the 
change  ? 

39.  "The  regular"  for  "a  lawful"  =  rT\  evvojac-i.  (?) 
Wliat  is  a  substantive  or  an  adjective  to  an  article  ? 

40.  "And  as  touching  it"  =7tsp\  ov.  But  "it"  must 
refer  to  "  riot"  ==  GraGeGO:,  above,  which  is  feminine.  Both 
the  text  and  their  translation  of  this  verse  are  very  con- 
fused. 

XX. 

2.  "Gone  through"  for  "gone  over."  (?) 

3.  "Determined"  for  "  purposed"^  fy^Vfro  yvGoi-irj — 
"was  minded' '  ? 

9.  "  Borne  down"  and  "  being  borne  down"==  naracpEpo- 
J.1EV0?  and  Harei'exOsiz. 

18.  "Set  foot  in"  for  "came  \n\.o'=e7ieftT]v  ei?.  So 
also  at  xxi.  4  ;   but  cf.  xxv.  i. 

19.  "Lowliness"  for  "  humility."  (?) 

24.  The  text  is  changed.  "  I  hold  not  my  life  of  any  ac- 
count as  dear  unto  myself."  Is  it  not  rather,  "the  life 
%uhich  is  dear  unto  myself  I  hold  of  no  account"  ? 

37.  "  The  whole  counsel"  for"  all  the  counser'=  naGciv 
rif'  fjnvXijv.     But  the  Revisers  have  not  onlv  rendered  ndi 


ACTS.  Ill 

o  and  Ttaffa  y  by  "all  the"  in  innumerable  cases,  but  they 
have  put  "all  the  city"  for  "the  wliole  city"  at  Matt.  viii. 
34.  (Cf.  Acts  xiii,  44,  where  they  say  "the  whole  city")  ; 
"  all  the  multitude"  for  "  the  whole  multitude"  ["  stood"  — 
"were  on"]  at  Matt.  xiii.  2  and  Mark  iv.  i  ;  "all  the  mul- 
titude"/"i^r  "the  whole  multitude"  ["sought"]  at  Luke  vi. 
19  (cf.  Luke  i.  10,  "The  whole  multitude  were  praying," 
and  Acts  vi.  5,  "  The  saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude") ; 
and  "all  the  earth"  for  "  the  whole  earth,"  at  Luke  xxi.  35. 
34.  "  Ye  yourselves  know"  ==  avrot  yiyooGuere.  And 
so  the  A.  v.,  and  so  right.  But  cf.  verse  18,  where  they 
put  "  ye  yourselves"  for  "  ye' '  =  vfxsTz  irciffraffSe.  "  Min" 
istered"  for  "have  ministered;"  but  in  verse  28,  "hath 
made"  (aorist),  while  most  of  the  aorists  in  this  connection 
are  rendered  by  the  simple  preterite. 

XXI. 

I.  "The  next  day"  for  "  the  day  following"  =  r// £^7?. 
Cf.  iii.  24. 

3,4.  "Having  found"  for  "  finding"  ==  ft'poyrf?,  fol- 
lowed by  an  aorist  verb  ;  cf.  John  ix.  35. 

3.  "  Leaving  it,  we"  for  "  we  left  it  and"  =  ^iara\l7t6vre<i^ 
also  followed  by  an  aorist  verb. 

5.  "  Kneeling,  we"  for  "we  kneeled  and," — an  aorist 
participle  again,  followed  by  an  aorist  verb,  as  at  verses  3, 
3,  and  4.  Also  at  verse  8,  "  entering,  we"  for  "  we  entered 
and;"  and  at  verse  11,  "coming,  and  taking,  he"  for 
"when  he  was  come,  he  took  and."  Compare  all  these 
with  the  correction  at  verses  2  and  4. 

9.  "Now  this  man"  for  "and  the  same  man"  ^rovrcp 
6i.     But  cf.  John  i.  3,  7,  etc. 

31.  "  They  have  been  informed"  for  "  they  are  informed." 
This  is  the  translation  of  the  aorist  JiaryjxvOijGav^  but  even  if 
it  had  been  of  a  perfect,  the  change  would  have  been  uncalled 
for  (cf.  "it  is  written").  And  it  is  striking  that  the  Re- 
visers have  given  the  very  same  translation  for  the  aorist 
here,  which,  at  verse  34,  they  have  given  for  the  perfect  of 
this  same  verb,  Harrjxi^ytai- :  see  also  Rev.  xviii.  2,  3. 
"Telling"    for  "  saying"  =A£yGL?v.       The  construction  of 


112  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE   REVISION. 

the  A.  V.  is  nearer  the  Greek;  "telling  them"  would  re- 
quire avrov^  to  be  avroi<i.  For  "  saying  that  they  ought 
not,"  in  the  A.  V.,  of.  Gal.  v.  7  ;  Heb.  iv.  6  ;  and  especially 
Rev.  X.  9,  where  they  give  us  "  saying  unto  him  that  he 
should  give"  ==  Xtycov  avTo)  Sovvai — thus  retaining 
''  saying"  even  though  the  dative  follows,  and  the  accusa- 
tive with  the  infinitive  has  to  be  supplied.  Why  did  they 
not  say  ''telling  him  to  give"?  Of  that  text,  that  would 
have  been  the  simple  and  direct  translation.  But  that 
texi  was  new,  and  so  they  had  no  opportunity  to  snub  the 
A.  V.  with  one  of  their  faithful  improvements  in  the  Eng- 
lish translation. 

25.  "Wrote"  for  "  have  written."     (?) 

26.  "Went  into"  for  "entered  into"  =^€lffrj€i  sib.  Cf. 
Matt.  X.  12;  Luke  xi.  ;^^,  etc.  Is  there  any  reason  why 
€i'<j£ij.a  should  not  mean  "enter"  as  well  ^s  eifftpxopiai 
and  siffTTopsvo/xai,  both  which  are  also  freely  translated 
"come"  and  "go"  as  well  as  "enter"  ?     Also  at  verse  18. 

24.  "  iMoreover"  for  "further."  (?)  "Defiled"  for 
"polluted."  (?) 

32.  "  And  they,  when  they"  for  "  when  they  .  .  .  they." 
And  so  at  verse  20  ;  but  see  Luke  vii.  4,  note,  and  Acts  i. 
6,  note. 

34,  35.    "Crowd"  for  "  multitude"  =  ojAoS.  (?) 

;^6.  "  Multitude"  =  ttI/^^oS"  .•  but  at  verse  27,  ojAoS"  is 
"multitude;"  and  at  xxiii.  7,  they  have  ''assembly"  /or 
"  multitude"  =7tX?/6o?. 

XXII. 

3.  "Instructed"  for  "taught."  Faithfulness.  "For 
God"  for  ''toward  God"  =tov  Oeov. 

5.  "  Journeved  to"  for  "went  to"  =  e7rnpEvopi7]v  €i?  : 
but  cf.  verse  10,  and  xxviii.  14. 

9.  "Beheld"  for  "  saw"  ^eOeaffavTo.  But  see  xxi.  27, 
where  we  have  "  saw"  ^Oeaffajusvoi. 

12.  "Well  reported  of  by"  for  "having  a  good  report 
of"  =  fxaprvpov}j.£vo'i.  Which  is  the  better  English, — 
"of  by"? 

13.  Why  did  they  not  say  "Saul,  brother"  for  "  brother. 


ACTS.  113 

Saul,"  and  follow  the  Greek  as  they  have  done  at  Gal.  vi. 
18,  etc.?  "That  very  hour"  for  "the  same  hour,"  — 
what  is  the  faithful  difference  ?  "  Up  on"  for  "  up  upon ;" 
but  this  is  liable  to  be  misheard,  and  see  Matt.  xiv.  25, 
where  they  give  us  "upon"  for  "on," — out  of  their  marvel- 
lous faithfulness. 

14.  "A  voice"  for  ''the  voice."  (?) 

15.  "  Hast  seen  and  heard"  =  e(ipaKaS  uai  7/HOVffa?. 

iS.  "Of  thee  testimony"  for  "thy  testimony."  Else- 
where they  faithfully  put  "witness"  for  "testimony,"  as 
at  John  iii.  33,33;  v.  34;  viii.  17;  xxi.  24,  etc.,  etc.  Their 
zeal  about  the  article  (which  is  omitted  before  fxaprvpiav) 
has  led  to  their  rendering  (Jov  as  if  it  were  napa  aov,  or 
were  governed  by  Trapcxdt^ovtai.  (?)     Cf.  Rom.  ix.   7. 

31.    "  Unto  the  Gentiles"  =sh  i'Ovy/. 

23.  "Threw"  for  ^^  C1^st"  =  piTtTovvr  gov.  "Cast"  for 
'■'^  threw"  ^  ft aXkovr GOV.  What  an  unspeakable  improve- 
ment is  here  ! 

34.  "  For  what  cause  they  so  shouted"  for  "  wherefore 
they  so  cried."  There  are  three  words  for  one,  and 
"shouted"  for  "  cried  ;"  and,  after  all,  we  are  where  we 
were  before. 

35.  "When  they  had  tied  him  up"  for  "  as  they  bound 
him"  =  CO?  dh  Trpotreivav.  But  cf.  xxv.  14,  where  they 
actually  correct  the  A.  V.  by  putting  "  as  they  tarried  there 
many  days"  for  "when  they  had  been  there  many  days" 
=  &?5  6e  Sierpiftov,  k.t.X.,  followed  as  here  by  another 
aorist. 

29.  Here  they  change  the  construction  of  the  English, 
although  the  A.  V.  gives  the  same  sense,  and  follows  the 
Greek  construction,  with  the  exception  of  the  ovv,  which 
here  means  "  thereupon,"  and  may  as  well  come  first  as 
second  in  the  English  order. 

XXIII. 

I.  "Looking  stedfastly  on"  for  "  earnestly  beholding." 
Cf.  iii.  12.  "  Before  God,  in  all  good  conscience,"  for  "in 
all  good  conscience,  before  God."  The  A.  V.  has  the  words 
in  the  Greek  order. 


114  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

5.  "A  ruler"  for  "the  ruler."  Can  it  be  doubted  that 
here  the  A.  V.  is  right?  And  so,  in  verse  6,  "a  son,"  in 
apposition  and  witli  an  anarthrous  genitive.  Cf.  verse  8, 
where  they  say  "the  Sadducees"  and  "the  Pharisees," 
though  there  is  no  article  in  the  Greek.  9.  "Clamor"  for 
"cry"  =  Hpoix^yi) :  but  see  verse  6,  "  he  cried"  =  i'Kpa8,£v. 

12,  14.  "Bound,"  and  so  on  until  "have  killed," — all 
aorists  indicative  and  subjunctive,  and  variously  rendered 
in  the  pieterite,  perfect,  and  pluperfect. 

15.  "  Or  ever  he  come  near," — retained.  "As  though  ye 
would  judge  more  exactly"  for  "  as  though  ye  Avould  en- 
quire something  more  perfectly"  =  cjS"  j.ilXXovTai  diayi- 
yooGJiEiv  aupifttcTTepov. 

18.  "Took,  and"  =  TtapaXafjoov  =  "  took  along,  and." 
"  To  say"  ==  XaXt~/ffai.  Cf.  iii.  22  (xxvi.  22,  "  say")  ;  John 
viii.  25,  26  (xvi.  18,  "  say") ;  xviii.  20,  21,  etc.,  where  "  speak" 
is  substituted  for  "  say." 

20.  "  Have  agreed"  =  an  aorist.  "To  bring  down"  for 
"  that  thou  wouldst  bring  down' '  =  ottgos  Karaydyr^?, — 
also  verse  23.     But  cf.  John  xi.  53. 

27.  "Slay"  for  "  kill"  =  araipsiaOai, — and  so  in  verse 
21  =  aviXc^Giv  :  but  "  kill"  for  "  slay"  in  verses  12  and  14 
=  a7toHT€ivGj.  Cf.  XXV.  3,  where  aveXeiv  is  rendered 
"kill,"  not  "slay." 

32.  "  To  go"  =  aTTepxs-ydai,— not  "  come  off." 

23.  "And  they,  when  they  came,"  for  "  who,  when  they 
came"  =  OLTive;.  Cf.  Matt.  vii.  15;  Heb.  xii.  7;  Tit.  i. 
11;  2  Tim.  ii.  18;  2  Thess.  i.  9;  Eph.  iv.  19;  Rom.  iv.  18, 
etc.  ;  where  they  render  offTii  "  who"  or  "  which  ;"  though 
in  many  of  those  cases  faithfulness  would  require  a  remodel- 
ling as  much  as  here. 

35.  "  Thy  cause"  for  "  thee"  =  (}(>{}. 

XXIV. 

I.  "  And  they"  for  "  who;"— here  right,  for  it  prevents 
an  ambiguity  in  English. 

4.   "Intreat"  for  "pray"  =  TrapnuaXc^.  (?) 

9,   "Affirming"  for  "saying"  =  cpaGHOvrei.  (?) 

JO,  The  construction  of  the  A.  V.  is  nearer  the  Greek, 


ACTS.  115 

and  the  sense  the  same.  The  Revisers  would  improve  the 
English,     Faithfulness? 

12.  "A  crowd"  for  "the  people"  =  ojAof.  (?)  Why 
not  say  "the  multitude,"  their  usual  rendering?  In  this 
construction,  in  the  genitive,  the  article  is  not  required  in 
Greek.  At  verse  18,  "crowd"  for  "  multitude"  spoils  the 
English  rhythm,  besides  introducing  the  unusual  rendering. 

23.  "Determine"  for  "know  the  uttermost  of"  = 
diayvojffofxai.    (?) 

34.  Is  not  this  change  of  construction  for  the  worse,  ren- 
dering a  subordinate  clause  coordinate;  and,  in  any  event, 
is  it  not  unnecessary? 

36.  "Call  thee  unto  me"  for  "call  for  thee"  =  fxera- 
naXiffopiai.  Cf.  xx.  i,  where  they  have  made  just  the  con- 
trary change  ! 

37.  "  Desiring"  for  "willing"  =  BtXcov  (and  so  at  xxv. 
9)  =  "having  a  mind  to."  But  Cf.  Rom.  ix.  23,  where,  in 
a  precisely  similar  construction  and  meaning,  they  render 
"willing."  "In  bonds"  for  "bound"  ==  dsdsjuivov.  Is 
not  the  sense  the  same  ?  And  which  is  the  more  faithful 
to  the  Greek  ? 

XXV. 

I.  "Having  come  into"  for  "  when  he  was  come  into" 
=  €7n/3d;.  But  cf.  xx.  18  ;  and  xxi.  4,  where  they  render 
STtif^alvoo  el?  "set  foot  in."  Their  changed  order,  "to 
Jerusalem  from  Caesarea,"  is  unnatural  in  English;  and,  as 
for  faithfully  conforming  to  the  Greek,  they  might  as  well 
have  rendered  the  interpretation  of  Emmanuel,  after  the 
Greek:  "with  us  God."  3.  "  Kill"  =  avsXeiv.  See  note 
xxiii.  37.  4.  "  Howbeit"  for  "but"  ==  juev  ovv  =  "  where- 
upon" ?  And  soat  xxviii.  5.  "Howbeit"  seems  to  be  their 
favorite  Jack  at  a  pinch,  if  one  may  be  allowed  the  collo- 
quialism. 

8.  "Have  I  sinned"  for  "have  I  offended"  =  "/juaprov. 
Note  the  aorist.  The  A,  V.  would  reserve  the  English  word 
"sin"  for  offending  against  God.  "  Desiring"  for  "  will- 
ing" ==diXcov,  see  xxiv.  27.  "Wilt  thou  go"  =  6eX€i?, — 
not  "  wouldst  thou." 


Il6  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE   REVISION. 

lo,  II.  "Havel  done,"  aorist  ;  "have  committed,"  per- 
fect in  the  Greek. 

17.  "When  therefore"  for  "therefore  when,"  and  so, 
habitually.  But  wherefore  is  it  necessary  ?  May  not 
"therefore"  begin  a  clause  in  English.?  And  does  not  the 
illation  here  belong  logically  to  the  principal  rather  than  to 
the  subordinate  clause  with  "when"?  "Next  day"  for 
"morrow,"  but,  at  verse  6,  "morrow"  for  "next  day,"  — 
where  the  same  fact  is  referred  to.     Exquisite  faithfulness  ! 

22.  "Could  wish"  for  "would"  =  £(3ov\6].ij]v.  (.') 

23.  "  In"  for  "  forth."      Nothing  in  the  Greek  for  either. 
25  and  21.   The  marginal  "the  Augustus"  may  indeed  be 

Greek,  but  is  it  English  ? 

27.   "In  sending"   for  "to  send."     Why  change?     The 
sense  is  the  same,  and    neither  follows  the  Greek.     That, 
literally  translated,  would  be  "that  one  [or  'that  I']  send- 
'ing  a  prisoner  should  not  also  signify,"  etc, 

XXVI. 

6.  "  Stand  to  be  judged"  for  "  stand  and  am  judged"  = 
e6Tr]Ka  Kpivo/xsvos.  (?) 

7.  "  By  the  Jews."     No  article  in  the  Greek. 

8.  "If  God  doth  raise "  for  "that  God  should  raise." 
Which  is  English,  and  which  is  good  reason  ? 

10.  "And  this"  for  "which  thing"  =  o.  What  sort  of 
faithfulness  required  this  change  ?  "  Vote"  for  "  voice"  = 
ipf/cpor.     The  difference  ? 

11.  Changeof  construction  certainly  unnecessary.  "Strove 
to  make"  for  ^^  compelled"  =  ?/r ay jur^ov.  If  there  was 
any  ambiguity  it  was  in  the  Greek. 

16.  "  Have  appeared,"  an  aorist.  "To  this  end"  for  "  for 
this  purpose,"  and  what  then?  "Wherein"  for  "  in  the 
which."  The  sense  is  the  same  ;  and  one  expression  is 
about  as  antiquated  as  the  other.  But  "the  which"  they 
elsewhere  use  and  multiply. 

22  and  23.  "  Should"  =  /usXXovrcov  and  fxiXkeu  Also  at 
xi.  28  ;  xix.  27  ;  xx.  38.  But  cf.  verse  2  and  xxiii.  27  ;  xxii. 
29.  They  translate  by  "would"  at  xxiii.  15,  and  change  it 
quite  at  xii.  6  and  xvi.  27. 


ACTS.  IT7 

24.  "Mad,"  "madness,"  "mad,"  But  cf.  Matt.  xxii.  3. 
Why  not  there  say  "to  bid  the  bidden"  or  "to  call  the 
called"  ?  However  it  may  be  in  Greek,  such  repetitions 
are  disagreeable  in  English.  Does  faithfulness  require 
them  1  If  so,  then  it  requires  them  in  all  cases  alike.  Cf. 
also  Rev.  xii.  15. 

28.  "  With  but  little  persuasion  thou  wouldst  fain  make 
me"  for  "almost  thou  persuadest  me  to  be"  ==  fV  oXiycp 
/AS  TTSidei^  TtoiTJffai  [yeviffSai].  Even  if  the  sv  oXiyoj 
cannot  mean  "  almost,"  the  Revisers  have  certainly  given  a 
questionable  rendering  of  the  Greek.  Would  not  the  most 
faithful  and  literal  translation  be:  "In  brief  thou  art  per- 
suading me  to  make  me  a  Christian"  ?  Or,  if  we  would  avoid 
the  repetition  of  "me,"  say:  "thou  art  using  persuasion 
to  make  me."     For  ^V  oXiycp  see  Eph.  iii.  3. 

XXVII. 

2.  "Sail  unto"  =  TtXsiv  f/s".  But  see  verses  i  and  6, 
"  sailing  for." 

7.  Present  and  aorist  participles  co-ordinated  in  the 
Greek,  and  both  translated  as  pluperfects. 

23.  "The  God"  for  "God."     But  cf.  24  and  25. 

24.  "Granted"  for  "given"  ==  nexocpiGxai.  (?) 

29.  "Let  go  from"  for  "cast  out  of"  =  fjiipavre?  ix. 
"To  cast  anchor"  is  an  idiomatic  phrase  in  English  ;  and 
how  often  the  Revisers  substitute  "out  of"  for  "  from"  as 
a  translation  of  eye  we  have  seen.  In  the  next  verse  they 
translate  it  both  ways  ;  and  substitute  "  lay  out"  for  "cast 
out"  (anchors)  ==  eKtEiveiv  =  "stretch  out."  But  is  "  lay 
out"  any  more  faithful  than  "cast  out".? 

34.  "Beseech"  for "pray"=7ra'pa'Ka'A&5, — not  "intreat;" 
cf.  xxiv.  4.     "Safety"  for  "health"  ==  Goorijpia.   (?) 

43.  "Desirous"  for  "willing"  =^ /?ot;Ao/^fro5  =  "being 
disposed,  or  minded,  to."  But  SfAoj  more  usually  means 
to  will  with  choice  or  purpose. 

XXVIII. 

4.  "Hath  suffered"  for  "  suffereth"  =  fzttro'fr.  Why 
change?    Q,i.  svdouriffa. 


Il8  AZOTES  OAT   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

5.  "  Howbeit  he"  for  "and  he"  =  o  yut  r  ot»r  .-  and  fol- 
lowed by  01  Se. 

8.  "  And  it  was  so"  for  "  and  it  came  to  pass''==  eyivero 
SL  But  see  the  almost  frantic  efforts  elsewhere  made  to 
render  }//;/royuai  differently  from  f//</.  "And  laying"  for 
"and  \ci\d!'  =  eni'^eh, — not  "having  laid;"  cf.  xxi.  2,  4. 
Change  of  construction  here  unnecessary  and  inconsistent ; 
cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  27,  etc. 

12.  "Touching"  for  "  landing"  =  7ia'rn'j5fVr65'.  (?)  And, 
here  again,  not  "  having  touched." 

14.  "  Intreated"  for  '' desired"  ^  7ra'pf;fA/)S^?//^fK, —  not 
"besought,"  cf.  xxvii.  34.  "To  Rome"  for  "toward  Rome" 
=  £zV.      Note  the  connection  and  cf.  John  xx.  3. 

15.  "The  brethren,  when  they,"  for  "when  the  breth- 
ren,  .  .   ,  they."     See  notes,  Luke  vii.  4,  and  Acts  i.  6. 

16.  "  Abide"  for  "  dwell"  = /<i?'fzK.     Consequential. 
18.   "  Desired"  for  "  would  have"  =  f/?ot;Aorro.  (?) 

27.  "  This  people's  heart"  for  "  the  heart  of  this  people" 
=  7)  napSia  rov  Xaov  rovrov.  As  here  is  the  full  suite  of 
articles,  it  is  difficult  to  guess  why  they  made  this  petty 
change.  But  cf.  Matt.  xii.  40.  "They  have"  for  "have 
they^" — oh!  unfathomable  faithfulness!  "Perceive"  for 
"■  sqq"  ==  iSooGi.  Is  this  faithfulness?  If  i'dooaiis  not  the 
simple  word  for  "  seeing,"  "  seeing  with  the  eyes,"  what  is 
that  word  ? 

30.  "  Abode"  for  "  dwelt"  (see  verse  16) ;  and  "  dwelling" 
for  "  house"  =  /xiffS^Go/uari.  But  is  there  anything  that  de- 
termines this  last  to  be  a  "  dwelling"  rather  than  a 
"  house"  ?     Not  unlikely  it  was  a  dwelling-house. 


ROMANS. 

I. 

3,4.  "Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,"  is  dislocated  after  the 
Greek  construction,  to  no  purpose  but  to  spoil  the  English. 
Cf.  2  Peter  iii.  i.  "Who  was  born"  for  "which  was 
made"  =  rov  y£vo}.ifvoi) :  and  so  at  Gal.  iv.  4.  But  is  this 
change  necessary  ?     The  Revisers  have  elsewhere  familiarly 


ROMANS.  119 

rendered  yivojxai  "  be  made ;' '  and  it  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  yevvaofxai  and  rinrofxai. 

10,  "  May  be  prospered"  for  "  might  have  a  prosperous 
journey"  =  avodcoBi'/ffojuai.  Which  is  the  more  faithful  to 
tlie  sense?  and  note  the  future  form. 

12.  "That  I  with  you  may  be  comforted  in  you"  =Gv/x- 
7tapaji\7]^7]vai  iv  ti/^?K  =  "that  [being]  among  you  I  with 
you  may  be  comforted"  ? 

14.  If  "  to  Greeks  and  to  barbarians,"  then  say  "to  wise 
and  to  unwise,"  not  ''to  the  wise  and  to  tlie  foolish."  But 
at  verse  16  they  render  "  the  Jew  and  the  Greek,"  although 
there  is  no  article  in  the  text. 

17.  "A  righteousness  of  God"  for  "the  righteousness 
of  God'"  =  6 luaioavvj]  &eov :  and  so  at  iii.  21,  22.  But 
this  is  a  sort  of  title,  a  fixed  Pauline  phrase.  "The"  is 
better  English  than  "  a;"  as  the  English  will  scarcely  bear 
no  article  like  the  Greek.  The  Apostle  is  not  thinking  of 
righteousness  whicli  might  be  counted.  Cf.  iii.  5  ; — can  the 
accusative  in  Greek  dispense  with  the  article  any  more 
readily  than  the  nominative  in  such  a  case  as  this .''  Cf.  also 
iii.  21,  22. 

19.  "  Manifested"  for  "  hath  showed."  But  this  is  not  a 
historical  aorist, — see  "is  manifest,"  just  before. 

20.  "Through"  for  "by,"  {he  instrumental  dative; 
change  unnecessary,  for  "by"  leaves  the  sense  no  more 
doubtful  in  English  than  it  is  in  Greek. 

21.  "Knowing  God"  for  "when  they  knew  God"  = 
yvovre';.  (?)  "Senseless"  for  "  iooYish."  ==  affvvsros  (bet- 
ter, "stupid"?);  elsewhere  they  have  rendered  this  word 
"  without  (or  void  of)  understanding." 

II. 

5.  "For"  for  "  unto"  =  dative.  "In  the  day,"  "the 
righteous  judgement."     No  article;  cf.  2  Cor.  vi.  2. 

7.  "  In  well-doing"  =  I'pyov  ayaSov.  Why  not  be 
faithful,  and  say  "  in  a  good  work"  ?  "  Incorruption"  for 
"  immortality"  =  acpS-apffia, — consequential. 

8.  "Factious"  for  "  contentious"  =  f^  epi3'£in'<; .-  and  so 


I20  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION, 

generally,   introducing   the    new  word   "faction,"  even  to 
saying,  James  iii.  14,  "having  faction  in  your  hearts." 

12,  13.  "Have  sinned"  =  ypiaprov .-  "under  law," 
"  judged  by  law,"  "a  law"  (bis).  But  is  not  "law"  here 
"  the  law," — "  the  revealed  law*'  ?  Can  it  be  any  law  what- 
ever ?     Cf.  verse  17. 

15.  "In  that  they"  for  "  which"  =  OiVrrs?.  See  note. 
Acts  xxiii.  33  ;  and  see  especially  Matt.  vii.  15. 

16.  "  Ey  Jesus  Christ."  Needlessly  displaced,  and  "by" 
=  6i(x. 

21.  "  Thou  therefore  that"  for  "  thou  therefore  which. " 
The  A.  V.  put  "which"  here  to  avoid  the  juxtaposition  of 
three  ///s,  and  afterward  used  "that"  when  there  was  no 
"therefore;"  but  the  Revisers,  out  of  sheer  faithfulness  to 
the  original  Greek,  have  felt  obliged  to  put  "that"  in  all 
the  clauses  alike,  as  far  as  to  verse  23,  where  they  say  "  who' ' 
for  "  that."  But  "  thou  that"  having  been  used  four  times, 
why  is  it  then  changed  to  "  thou  who"  ?  Is  this  an  effect  of 
faithfulness  also  ?     22.   "  Idols"  =  rci;  siocoXa, 

35.  "Be  a  doer"  =7Tpa0(})}?.  Elsewhere  they  change 
"do"  to  "practise"  fortius  verb. 

27.    "With"  for  '■'■  hy"  =^dia^  cum  gen. 

29.   "In  the  spirit,"  "  in  the  letter;" — no  article  in  the 

Greek. 

III. 

I.   "  Ciixumcision."    Why  not  "  the  circumcision"  ==  r//? 

3.  "Were  without  {■x\\\\' =  i]7tiari]aav.  At  Mark  xvi. 
16,  and  Luke  xxiv.  11,  41,  they  render  "disbelieve;"  but 
are  "want  of  faith"  and  "disbelief"  the  same?  At  iv.  20, 
they  render  aTtwr'ia  "unbelief,"  not  "  disbelief." 

4.  "Be  found"  for  '■'■he'  =  yivta'^Qo :  but  see  margin 
just  before.  "  When  thou  comest  into  judgement"  for  "  when 
thou  art  judged"  =  fV  ro?  Kpivsa^ai  ffs.     Wherefore  ? 

7.  "  Tlirough  my  lie," — fV. 

8.  '■^'EwW  =^  rn  Kana  :   '■'■  ^006."  =  Ta  ay (x'^ a. 

9.  "Arc  we  in  worse  case?"  for  "arc  we  better ?"== 
7rposxo/'S^(^-  Ov  7r(xvTG)?  =  ''  in  no  wise."  Cf.  i  Cor. 
ix.  10. 


ROMANS.  121 

12.  Aorists  coordinated  with  presents,  and  rendered  by 
perfects. 

19.  "  Under"  ==  eV(ro5  v6p.cp). 

20.  "  The  knowledge  of  sin  '  ==^  STtiyvcoffi?  : — no  article. 

21.  "The  law,"  "a  righteousness;" — no  article  with 
either.  "  Hath  been"  for  "  is  (manifested) ;' '  but  see  "  it  is 
written." 

22.  "Even    the    Tighieonsness"  =^iu(xio(rvvT^    Se.     Cf. 

i-  17. 

23.  "  All  have  sinned"  ^Ttdvrsi  I'lfxaprov  .-  and  so  at  11. 

12.  Here  coordinate  with  a  present.     Cf.  v.  12. 

25.  "To  shovv"  =  fi'5'  ri]v  e'vosi^iv,  "  for  the  sho\ving"  = 
Ttpoi  Tfjv  svdsi^iv.     Very  nice  ! 

26.  "  The  justifier"  ==  dinaiovvra. — No  art. 

27.  x'\orist="it  is  excluded."  "A  law"  for  "  the  law  (of 
faith)."  But  cf.  next  verse,  "the  works  of  the  law"  = 
i'pyGov  r6j.iov. 

30.  "  And  he"  for"\vho"=o5.  Why  not  say,  "  the  God 
is  one,  who  shall,"  etc.     Cf.  Acts  xxvii.  23. 

IV. 

I.  "What  then  shall  we  say  ?"  for  "  what  shall  we  say 
then?"  =  ri  ovv  ipovfxev ,    But  cf.  vi.  i;  viii.   31;  ix.  14. 

6.  "  Pronounceth  blessing  upon"  for  "  describeth  the 
blessedness  or'==Xlysi  rov  )x(xnapia}x6v  rov.  But  what 
of  articles? 

7.  "  Are  forgiven,"  "  are  covered," — aorists. 

9.  "Is  pronounced"  for  '•'•  cometh,''^  is  inserted  without 
italics. 

II.  "  The  sign"=  cr^/z/froi' .•  "the  father"=  TTa'ri'pn',  and 
"  righteousness"^  r/;K  diKnioavvTjv  .-  at  verse  12,  "circum- 
cision" and  "the  circumcision,"  no  article  with  either;  at 

13,  "the  world,"  "the  righteousness,"  no  article;  at  14, 
*'  of  the  law"=:^  sk  vojxov  :  "  faith"=?/  Tciori-,.,  "  the  prom- 
ise" ==  ?/  ETtayyeXia  :  and  at  16,  "of  the  law"=  f;i:  to;3 
VOIJ.OV :  "of  the  faith"=  in  TtiGtsooi.  And  why  did  they 
forget  to  say,  "  of  Abraham's  faith"  ? 

18.   "Who   in    hope    believed    against    hope"     for  "  who 


122  NOTES   ON    THE   LATE  REVISION. 

against  hope  believed  in  hope"=03  naf)  eXitida  ajt  sXTtidi 
i7ti<JT£V(j£v.     Whicli  is  the  more  faithful  ? 

20.    "  Yea  lookincf''  is  inserted  without  italics. 


1.  "Being  therefore"  for  "  therefore  being."  But  the 
A.  V.  is  good  English,  good  logic,  and  the  true  sense. 

5.  "Which  was  given"  for  "which  is  given"=roi) 
(Jo0iVro;  .•  and  so  at  xii.  3,  but  cf.  verse  i,  and  Matt.  ii.  i, 
etc. 

6.  "While  we  were  weak"  for  "when  we  were  without 
strength"  =  aVTCL)r  affOevaJr.  (?) 

11.  Nvr  £\d/3oj.isv,  must  be  rendered  perfect. 

12.  "Sinned"  for  "have  sinned"  == ///''^Pt'oj^  But  we 
have  already  seen  several  cases  in  this  very  epistle  where 
they  have  rendered  this'very  word  "have  sinned."  The 
subject  "all"  brings  it  down  to  the  present  time,  as  also  at 
iii.  23.  They  might,  with  reason,  have  changed  "  passed  " 
to  "  hath  passed  ;"  but,  at  all  events,  "ipiapTov  is  not  related 
as  a  pluperfect  to  SiyXOev, — the  "  sinning"  and  the  "  pass- 
ing" went  (or  have  gone)  on  together.  See  ii.  I3,  13  ;  Acts 
XXV.  8,  etc. 

14.  "Who  is  a  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come," — tov 
j.ieXXovT05  : — not  "who  was  a  figure,"  etc.,  nor  ''  that  is  to 
come."      Cf.  Matt,  xi.  14. 

VI. 

2.  "Died"  for  "are  dead,"  and  order  changed.  (?)  Mani- 
festly a  present  condition  of  "death  to  sin"  is  referred  to. 

3.  "All  we  who  were  baptized"  for  "so  many  of  us  as 
were"  =  cxroi  efta7tTLG^7]iAev.  Why  not  say  :  "  that  we,  so 
many  as  were,"  etc.  ? 

4.  "We  were  buried  therefore"  for  "therefore  we  are 
buried;" — they  do  not  say,  "we  therefore,"  cf  v.  i.  And, 
for  the  tense,  sec  y£yov(\f.i£v  in  verse  5.  It  is  an  ancient 
Christian  idea  that,  by  continual  mortifying  our  corrupt  af- 
fections, we  are  buried  with  Christ ;  thus  carrying  into  effect 
what  is  signified  in  baptism. 

6.    "Was  crucified"  for  "is  crucified"  {i.e..,  "  has  been")  ; 


ROMANS.  123 

it    reaches  to   the   present   result.     Cf.  Gal.  v.    24,    where, 
in  the  Revision,  iatavpoooav  =  '-'-'\\z.\q  crucified." 

7.  "He  that  hath  died"  for  "he  that  is  dead"  =  o 
ano'^avwv.  But  this  is  only  one  form  of  the  English /^r- 
fed  for  another ;  and  so  they  break  down  at  last  in  their 
substitution  of  the  preterite  for  the  perfect  in  translating 
a.TiL'^avov  : — they  did  not  venture  to  say  "he  that  died.'' 
At  I  Thess.  V.  10,  they  render  the  same  participle,  referring 
to  Christ,  "who  died," — and  rightly;  but  at  Heb.  xi.  4, 
they  render  it,  referring  to  Abel,  "being  dead,"  not  "hav- 
ing died, "and  still  less  "who  died."  Cf.  Matt.  ii.  i,  where 
they  render  o  rfjSf/?  "he  that  is  born;"  and  Heb.  vi.  4-6 
"who  were  enlightened."  Cf.  also  i  Thess.  iv.  14,  where 
"  Jesus  died"  =  anL^ave.,  and  "  them  that  are  fallen  asleep" 
==  rovi  K0ij.i7]^irra?, — not  "  that  fell  asleep."  The  change 
to  "  died"  in  verse  S  is  a  palpable  incongruity,  and,  in 
general,  their  occasional  and  arbitrary  substitution  of  have 
for  be  with  die^  come,  go,  etc.,  is  uncalled  for,  and  strange  after 
"Our  Father  which." 

8.  "  Died"  for  "be  dead"  =  «7r6Saro/i£r.  Thisisapres- 
ent  condition,  as  appears  from  verse  1 1,  wliere  an  unequivo- 
cal expression  is  used  in  a  perfectly  parallel  case.     Cf.  vii.  6. 

17.  "  Became  obedient  to"  for  "  have  obeyed"  =i;7r/;;i:oi)- 
ffar8.  Above  they  rendered  the  same  verb  "obey,''  and 
not  "  become  obedient."  Why  change  here.'  What  has 
become  of  their  painful  consequential  faithfulness.'  Cf. 
"  enter  in,  enter  in,  enter  ;"  "  mad,  madness,  mad  ;"  "  sub- 
jection, subjection,  subject,  subjected,  subjected,  subject;" 
Matt,  xxiii.  13  ;  Acts  xxv.  24,  25  ;  i  Cor.  xv.  37,  28. — The 
"  whereas"  here  is  not  in  the  original.  The  A.  V.  and  the 
margin  give  the  proper  rendering  and  the  simple  meaning 
of  the  text,  unless  it  is  proposed  to  paraphrase. 

VII. 

1.  "  A  man"  =  tov  ar^pcoTtov. 

2.  "Discharged  from"  for  "loosed  from"  (opposed  to 
"bound")  =  naryipyr^rai.  And  so  they  often  say,  for  "de- 
livered," "freed,"  "loosed,"  etc.  Is  the  change  required 
by  faithfulness  "i     Is  it  even  any  improvement  1     There  is 


124  A'OTES    ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

nothing  in  the  original  word  about  a"  charge"  era  "  load" 
of  any  kind,  wiiether  literally  or  figuratively. 

3.  "  Joined"'  for  "  married"  ^  ykvrjrai.  (?) 

4.  "  Were  made  dead"  for  "are  become  dead,"  and  "  was 
raised"  for  "  is  raised"  (aorists).  The  old  versions,  witli 
the  Rhemish,  all  agree  with  the  A.  V.  here,  as  in  all  the 
parallel  cases. 

6.  "We  have  been  discharged"  for  "  we  are  delivered" 
{i.e.,  "have  been"), — aorist.  "Having  died"  for  "being 
dead;" — at  Heb.  xi.  4,  they  render  the  same  participle  "  be- 
ing dead." — Here  they  render  in  both  cases  the  aorist  by  the 
perfect,  for  our  deliverance  from  the  law  and  our  death  with 
Christ  ;  and  close  the  verse  with  referring  it  to  a  present 
state.     Why  not  translate  consistently  with  this  elsewhere.' 

7.  "Except"  for  "  but"  =  fz  yu?/.  The  change  is  un- 
necessary here.  It  is  not  consistently  adhered  to  elsewhere  ; 
for  they  not  only  render  f/  /^//  by  "  but,"  but  often  substitute 
"but"  for  some  other  word  in  the  A.  V.  The  following 
"  except"  is  in  a  different  construction. 

8.  "(Sin)  finding  occasion"  for  "taking  occasion"  = 
aqjop;u)v  \af5ovGa.  Which  is  most  faithful  to  the  Greek .' 
The  syntax  of  ()ia  tt"/^  evroXfji  is  open  to  question  :  Avhether 
the  commandment  was  used  as  an  occasion  or  as  a  means  of 
the  working  of  sin  .-*  From  what  follows  in  verse  11,  the 
Revisers  would  seem  more  likely  to  be  right. 

15.  "Know  not"  for  "allow  not"  {i.e.,  "approve  not"). 
But  what  sense  is  thus  made?  Is  not  the  true  sense:  "what 
I  do,  I  do,  not  recognizing  it  to  be  right,  i.e.,  not  approving 
it"  ?     And  will  not  yivooffuoj  bear  this  sense? 

17,  20,  etc.  "Sin  which  dwelleth"  for  "sin  that  dwell- 
eth  ;"  but  at  verse  2,  "  the  woman  that  hatli"  for  "  which 
hath."  What  infinitesimal  nicety  of  faithfulness !  And 
yet  "  our  Father  which  art''!  In  the  Greek  the  "sin"  is 
as  definite  as  the  "  woman,"  being  in  the  very  same  form 
of  construction  ;  and  is  not  "Our  Father"  t/ie  Father  of  us? 

25.  Wily  not  say,  "a  law  of  God,"  "a  law  of  sin,"  at 
least  in  tlie  margin,  =  ro/irc?  Qsov^  voj.icp  aj.iapTia??  Cf. 
viii.  14,  16,  and  Matt,  xxvii.  54,  marg  In  fact  "the  law," 
"  law,"  "a  law"  are  very  much  mixed  up  between  the  text 


ROMANS.  125 

and  the  margin  ;  and  the  presence  or  absence  of  the  article 
in  the  Greek  by  no  means  determines  the  translation.  Not 
special  Greek  scholarship,  but  good  English  common-sense, 
with  a  study  of  the  context,  a  consideration  of  the  nature  of 
the  case,  and  an  apprehension  of  the  Apostle's  doctrinal 
drift,  must  be  appealed  to  and  must  be  relied  upon  for  that 
purpose.  But  neither  common-sense,  nor  the  context,  nor 
the  nature  of  the  case,  nor  the  Apostle's  drift,  are  any  spe- 
cial discoveries  "  of  to-day,"  or  since  the  translation  of  161 1, 

VIII. 

2.  "  Made"  for  "hath  made;"  but  see  the  vvv  just  be- 
fore. 

9.   "  The"  four  times  ; — no  article  in  Greek. 

II.  They  have  not  got  "  also"  into  the  right  place  after 
all.  It  should  be  "your  mortal  bodies  also," — if  they  have 
any  rule  for  its  position. 

14,  16.  "Are  sons  of  God"  for  "  are  the  sons  of  God ;" 
"children"  for  "  the  children."  These  are  both  predicates 
and  genitive  constructions;  and,  besides,  cf.  verse  23,  "  our 
adoption." 

19-23.  "  Creation"  for  "  creature"  =  //  uTiffi?.  Would 
it  not  have  been  better  to  have  substituted  "  creature"  for 
"creation"  at  verse  22,  and  thus  have  harmonized  the 
whole.'  They  have  broken  down  v,rith  their  "  creation"  at 
verse  39  and  rendered  "creature."  The  word  xriffis  does 
not  stand  here  for  the  act  of  making,  but  for  what  is  made  ; 
and  Ttdffa  ?/  HTiffi?,  at  verse  22,  whether  rendered  "the 
whole  creation,"  or  "  all  the  creatures,"  or  "every  creat- 
ure," does  not  mean  literally  all  created  things, — "  tlie 
whole  creation"  absolutely, — unless  the  Gospel  is  to  be 
preached,  and  has  been  preached,  to  all  created  things, 
including  beasts,  birds,  fishes  (St.  Anthony,?),  trees,  stones, 
winds  and  waves,  sun  and  moon,  stars  and  comets.  See 
Mark  xvi.  15  ;  Col.  i.  23.  "  The  whole  creation"  or  "  every 
creature"  is,  simply,  "all  mankind"  or  "  every  man," — and 
that  too  in  a  general,  not  in  an  absolute  sense. 

28.  The  English  is  stiffened  by  a  Greek  construction, — • 
making  an  awkward  "  ez'en"  necessary.     Cf.  2  Peter  iii.  i. 


126  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

29.  "  The  first-born"  =  Ttpoororouov.  No  article.  But 
see  verses  14  and  16; — all  predicates. 

31.  "  What  then  shall  we  say?"  for  "  what  shall  we  then 
say?"  ri  ovv  epovjxsv  ^  And  so  at  iv.  i.  For  this  same 
formula,  at  vi.  i  and  ix.  14,  they  content  themselves  with 
following  the  A.  V.  and  saying:  "  What  shall  we  say  then  ?" 
What  hair  are  they  splitting?  Who  can  fathom  the  depths 
of  this  kind  of  faithfulness  ?  If  they  had  simply  conformed 
the  rendering  of  the  A.  V.  here  to  that  at  vi.  i,  and  elsewhere, 
they  might  have  had  some  pretext  for  the  change, — but, 
even  then,  how  very,  very  slight ! 

36.  "We  were  accounted"  for  "we  are  accounted," 
aorist ;  meaning  "  we  have  been,"  for  it  is  co-ordinate  with 
a  present.     Cf.  iii.  12. 

38,  39.  The  transposition  of  "  powers"  following  a 
change  of  text  is  unfortunate  for  the  English;  and  the 
rhythm  of  a  magnificent  passage  is  brought  to  utter  con- 
fusion.    And  what  is  gained  thereby?     Cf.  2  Peter  iii.  i. 

IX. 

8.  "Children"  for  "the  children,"  "a  seed"  for  "the 
seed,"  predicates.  This  may  be  "a  sense,"  but  is  it  "the 
sense"?  At  verse  7,  "thy  seed"  has  no  article,  though  in 
the  nominative  case.  Why  did  they  not  there  say,  "  a  seed 
to  thee".' 

9.  "  A  word  of  promise"  for  "  the  word."  Does  the 
apostle  mean  that  the  form  of  expression  which  he  quotes 
is  of  the  nature  of  a  promise  ?  That  surely  is  jejune  enough. 
Does  he  not  rather  plainly  mean  that  "  this  is  the  very  prom- 
ise" which  was  made  to  Abraham?  Where  the  Greek 
predicate  noun  is  in  the  singular  number  without  the  article 
the  English  is,  a  priori,  more  likely  to  require  "  the"  than 
"a,"  if  it  must  have  some  article; — unless  "the"  would 
refer  to  some  specific  object  definitely  expressed  or  implied 
in  the  immediate  context. 

19.  "Still"  for  "yet," — to  what  purpose?  Cf.  i  Cor. 
XV.  17. 

22.  "Willing  to  show"  =  '^iXcov  ei'Ssu^mffS-ai, — not 
"  desiring"  or  "  wishing."     Cf.  Acts  xxiv.  27  ;  xxv.  9. 


HOMANS.  127 

27.  "If"  for  "though"  =  iav.  But  what  is  here  ex- 
pressed is  not  a  condition  but  a  concession. 

X. 

3.  "Did  not  subject"  for  "have  not  submitted."  In 
verse  2  we  read  "they  have  a  zeal  for  God ;"' the  case  is, 
tliereforc,  a  present  one.  Otherwise,  on  what  occasion  was 
it  that  "  they  did  not  subject  themselves,"  etc. .' 

II.  "Shall  not  be  put  to  shame"  for  "shall  not  be 
ashamed"  =  naraiGX'^'^^h^^'''^'^-  If  the  verb  be  treated  as 
passive,  they  are  right ;  if  as  middle,  the  A.  V.  is  right.  But 
what  of  it .'' 

13.  "  The  same  Lord  is  Lord  of  all,  and  is  rich,"  for  "  the 
same  Lord  over  all  is  rich"=  o  avro<i  Kvpioi  navroov^ 
7t\ovr(hv^  etc.     There  is  no  "and"  in  the  original;  cf.   i. 

3'  4. 

14.  "Have  not  believed"  and  "have  not  heard,"  for 
Greek  aorists. 

19.  "  Did  Israel  not  know  V  for  "  did  not  Israel  know  .'*'' 
=  fj-i]  lupaifX  OV71  e'yvGj ;  Now  we  shall  all  understand 
the  Word  of  God. 

XI. 

I,  2,  "Did  God  cast  off  his  people.'"'  for"  hath  God  cast 
away  his  people?"  When  do  they  suppose  the  historical 
fact  to  have  taken  place.'  If  the  A.  V.  had  said  "  cast  off," 
we  might  have  expected  the  Revisers  to  substitute  "  cast 
away." 

3.  Aorists  rendered  by  perfects.  Compare  the  foregoing 
verses,  and  the  7th,  8th  and  nth. 

7.  "Obtained"  for  "  hath  obtained"  (bis). 

8.  "  Gave"  for  "  hath  given," — "  unto  this  day"  ! 

II,  "Did  they  stumble .-*"  for  "have  they  stumbled.'" — 
and  then,  "  salvation  is  come"  ! 

31.  "Mercy  shown  to  you"  for  "your  mercy"  =  rci5 
v/i(€Ttpcf}.  Which  is  translation  ?  If  the  A.  V.  is  obscure 
or  ambiguous,  it  is  no  more  so  than  the  original. 

32  and  34.  Aorists  as  perfects — again.  Cf.  verses  1,2,  7, 
8,  II. 


128  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

33.   "  The    wisdom    and    the    knowledge    of    God," — no 
Greek  article. 

XII. 

3.  "That  was  given"  for  "given"  or  "that  is  given"= 
r;/?  doOeiar]^ : — and  so  at  verse  6;  v.  5,  and  xv.  15  ; — but 
cf.  Matt.  ii.  2,  etc.  "  So  to  think  as  to  tiiink  soberly"  for 
"  to  think  soberly"=  qjpoveJv  f /s  to  ffcjqjpoveiv  ="  to  think 
unto  sober  thinking,"  or  "  to  think  unto  soberness  of  mind,' ' 
or  "  to  think  unto  soberness."  or  "to  think  soberly,"  or 
"so  to  think  as  to  be  soberminded."  "  Hath  dealt,"  aorist. 
"  A  measure  of  faith"  for  "  the  measure  of  faith."  Cf.  Rev. 
xxi.  17.  But  surely  it  is,  "according  to  the  measure  (not 
a  measure)  of  faith  which  God  hath  dealt  to  every  man." 
Is  "each  man"  any  better  English  ? 

10.  "  In  love  of  the  brethren"  for  "  with  brotherly  love" 
==  rlj  q)ikaSe\q)ia.  What  authority  have  they  for  putting 
the  article  with  "  brethren"  and  not  with  "love;"  or  for 
using  "in"  instead  of  "with"  for  the  mere  dative  case? 
And  which  is,  after  all,  the  consistent  sense  .?  We  might 
say:  "with  the  brotherly  love  {i.e.  which  characterizes 
Christians)  be  kindly  affectioned,"  etc. ;  or,  more  brielly,  as 
the  A.  V.     Compare  "the  weeping  and  gnashing." 

19.  "Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me"  for  "vengeance  is 
mine"  =  £}xoi  hidim^ai^.     Cf.  Matt.  v.  3 ;  xix.  14,  etc. 

XIII. 

I.  "  Power"  =  i^ovGia, — elsewhere  usually  changed  to 
"authority"  or  "right."  But  here  "  authority"  would  be 
more  in  place  than  in  many  of  the  other  cases. 

8.  "  Save"  for  "  but"  =  fz  /^7  .•  so  also  at  i  Cor.  i.  14. 
But  what  necessity  for  the  change  ?  Elsewhere  they  sub- 
stitute "but"  for  "  save,"  see  Luke  iv.  26,  27. 

ID.  "His  neighbour"  =  roS  ttA^/O" /or  =  "  the  neighbour" 
or  "one's  neighbour."  "  His"  was  right  with  the  A.  V., 
but  is  not  right  in  tlie  language  "  of  to-day."  It  is  quite  as 
likely  to  be  misunderstood  as  the  "  I  will  have  mercy"  at 
Matt.  ix.  13. 


ROMANS.  129 


XIV. 


14.  "  Save  that"  for  "  but"  =  al  fxr).  Cf.  Gal.  ii,  16,  where 
they  make  the  same  change  under  iav  }x{].  "But  only" 
would  be  better  in  both  cases,  as  at  Luke  iv.  26,  37,  where 
the  Revisers  substitute  it  for  "  save."  The  si  ////  makes  an 
exception  to  a  more  general  clause  understood  ;  thus  :  "  nor 
is  anything  at  all  unclean  but  (or  except,  or  save)  to  him 
that  reckoneth,"  etc.  But  if  the  exception  is  directly  ap- 
plied to  the  clause  expressed  it  becomes  nonsense.  Unless 
the  ellipsis  is  supplied,  "but"  (or  "but  only")  is  altogether 
better  than  "  save  that;"  and,  if  the  ellipsis  were  supplied, 
it  would  do  quite  as  well  as  the  other. 

20.  "  Overthrow"  for  "  destroy"  =  naraXvE,  (.') 

XV. 

9.  "Give  praise"  for  "  confess"  ==£<$' o/ioAo^/^O'Oyua;;.  In 
verse  ir,  "  praise"  ==  n'zVfrrf.  Might  not  the  unlearned 
reader  be  led  to  think  that  the  original  words  were  the 
same .'' 

11.  "Let  all  the  peoples  praise"  for  "  laud  him,  all  ye  peo- 
ple" =  STtaiveGarooffav. 

12.  "The  Gentiles"  (bis), — no  article  in  Greek. 

15.  "  I  write"  for  "  I  have  written," — an  aorist. 

18.  "  Wrought"  for  "hath  wrought."  (.'')  The  two  ver- 
sions of  this  verse  complement  each  other ;  but  the  A.  V. 
is  nearest  the  Greek. 

21.  The  A.  V.  is  more  literal,  and  equally  intelligible. 

22.  "  These  many  times"  for  "  much"  =  rd  noWa  (cf.  John 
iii.  23).  There  is  no  "these"  in  the  text.  Why  not  say 
"  often,"  and  have  done  with  it  ? 

30.  "  By"  for  "  for  the  sake  of"  (not  "  through")  =  (5^za; 
with  genitive. 

XVI. 

2.  "  Hath  been"  —  an  aorist.  Ji«'z;/flrp=  "  for  ...  also;" 
cf.  Matt.  XXV.  73  ;  i  Cor.  viii.  5,  etc.,  where,  no  "also." 

18.  "  Smooth  and  fair  speech"  for  "good  words  and  fair 
speeches"  =  ;j;p7;(5ToAo;//a'5   nai  evXoyia?.     If   the  A.  V. 


130  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

had  given  their  translation  can  there  be  any  doubt  that 
the  faithfulness  of  the  Revisers  would  have  substituted  that 
of  the  A.  V.  ?  or  else,  "  smooth  speech  and  fair  speech"? 
Just  look  at  the  Greek  ;  and  remember  their  "  go  in  and  go 
out"  for  "go  in  and  out,"  etc.,  etc. 

22.  '*  Who  write"  for  "who  wrote"  =  o  ypatpaS:  —  it 
should  be  "who  have  written." 

I.  CORINTHIANS. 
I. 

2.  If  the  Revisers  had  a  right  to  insert  "  Lord"  in  order 
to  make  the  sense  clear,  the  A.  V.  had  a  right  to  change 
the  order  of  the  words  for  the  same  purpose,  and  so  dis- 
pense with  the  insertion. 

4,  5,  6.  All  the  aorists  had  better  be  rendered  perfects  (as 
the  A.  V.  in  4  and  5), — as  appears  by  the  present  tense  in 
verse  7. 

9.  "  Through"  for  "  by"  =  5ia,  referring  to  God.  Is  that 
a  better  translation  in  such  a  case  ? 

11.  "Hath  been  signified"  for  "hath  been  declared"= 
eSffXcjO?/.  There  is  no  "  sign"  in  the  word, — it  is  not 
(jrjj.iaivco,  it  is  from  6?JXov,  and  means  "made  clear," 
"manifested."     Cf.  Rev.  i.  i. 

12.  "  Mean"  for  "  say"  =XiyGj.  It  is  not  their  business 
to  gloss,   but  to  translate. 

18.  "  Are  perishing"  for  "  perish'' =a'7roAAz7,f£Vr)z5'.  But 
all  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  brought  "are  perishing."  "Are 
being  saved"  for  "are  sa.ved"  ==  ffoo^opievoi?.  But  this  is 
questionable  English,  and  a  harshness  quite  unnecessar3\ 
So  at  Acts  ii.  47  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  15  ;  but  cf.  Luke  xiii.  23. 

19.  "Reject"  for  "bring  to  nothing"  =  rt^fr7/(7&7.  But 
they  have  rendered  this  word  "to  make  void"  at  Gal.  ii.  21 
and  iii.  15;  and  "to  set  at  nought"  at  Heb.  x.  28  and 
Jude  8. 

26.  "Behold"  for  "  scc"  =  /?Ai7rfrf.  They  render  /SXtTtGO 
"see,"  ten  to  one;  and  at  Acts  iv.  14  they  correct  the 
A.  V.  and  substitute  "  sec"  for  "  behold."  What  a  subtlety 
of  faithfulness! 


I.   CORINTHIANS.  131 

27.   "  Choose"  (three  times)  for  "  hath  chosen."  (?) 
30.  *'  Was  made"  for  "  is  made."  (.'  ?) 

II. 

6.  "A  wisdom"  for  "the  wisdom  (of  this  world)  ;"  yet 
at  verse  5  they  say  "the  wisdom  of  men,"  equally  without 
the  article  in  the  Greek ;  and  at  verse  7  they  say  *'  God's 
wisdom,"  which  must  be  "the  wisdom  of  God,"  though 
the  Greek  has  no  article. 

8.  "  Knoweth"for  "  knew"  ==  €yvGDH€y=''  hath  known." 
This  perfect  is  often  used  for  the  present,  but  not  always ; 
and  here  the  perfect  seems  more  suitable  to  the  context, 
since  it  is  immediately  added  :  "  for  had  they  known,"  etc. 
—  not  "  if  they  knew,"  etc. 

9.  "Things  which  eye  saw  not,"  etc. — a  strange  version 
indeed,  which  eye  hath  not  before  seen  nor  ear  heard  ;  and 
all  not  so  much  from  a  change  of  text  as  from  a  change  of 
tense  in  the  translation. 

10.  "  Revealed"  for  "  hath  revaaled."  (?) 

11.  "Save"  for  "  but"  =  ^z /«/ .•  but  see  again  Luke  iv. 
26,  37,  and  Rev.  ix.  4;  xix.  12;  xxi.  27,  etc.  "Things  of 
a  man,"  "spirit  of  the  man," — Tov  avdpooTtov  alike  in 
both  cases. 

13.  "Received"  for  "  have  received."  But  immediately 
afterwards,  "  are  given"  =;j'<xpzo'0£Vra'.  This  is  right  with 
"have  received,"  but  with  "  received"  one  would  have  ex- 
pected "were  given,"  as  at  iii.  10,  and  at  Rom.  v.  5;  xii. 
3,6;  XV.  15,  etc.  But  the  Revisers' faithfulness  seems  to 
have  been  at  fault  just  when  it  might  have  led  them  to  be 
consistent,  at  least,  if  not  right. 

14,  15.  "The  natural  man"  =  ipvxi>io?  dvOpcoTTO?, — no 
article;  and  then  "  he  that  is  spiritual"  {i.e.,  "the  spiritual 
man")  =  o  TtvsvjuaTiuoi.  Why  did  they  not  say  "  a  natural 
man"'  ?  As  the  article  is  omitted  with  tpvxi^o'^  and  inserted 
with  TTvevjuariKOi,  the  distinction  in  translation  would 
seem  to  have  been  forced  upon  their  articular  faithfulness  ; 
and  yet  one  can  hardly  suspect  them  of  slavishly  following 
the  A.  V.  This  phenomenon  must  therefore  remain  a 
mystery;    but     '''' aliquajido    bonus    dormitat    Homerus."     In 


132  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

verse   15,   "and"  for  '*yet."     The   A.  V.  is  right,  for  the 
apodosis. 

III. 

10.  "Was  given"  for  "is  given"  =  (^oSfT^rar.  Here 
they  have  changed  "  have  laid"  to  "  laid"  (needlessly,  even 
though  the  Greek  text  is  changed  from  perfect  to  aorist), 
and  so  they  are  consistent;  cf.  ii.  12.  "  A"  for  "the  (foun- 
dation);"  but  English  idiom  requires  "the"  for  the  true 
sense. 

13.  "Each"  for  "  every"  = /;f«a'ro;  .•  and  so  usually, 
but  not  always.  At  verses  5  and  8  the  change  is  well,  as 
but  two  only  are  compared.     Here  the  case  is  different. 

16.  "A"  for  "  the  (temple  of  God)."  Temple  is  a  pred- 
icate and  with  a  genitive  ;  and  see  the  next  verse.  The 
A.  V.  is  plainly  right,  and  the  Revisers  are  inconsistent 
with  themselves. 

IV. 

8.  Here  is  a  perfect  (or  a  present  with  a  perfect  participle) 
coordinated  with  aorists,  which  latter  are  (rightly)  rendered 
as  perfects  or  presents, — one  of  them  being  conjoined  with 
r}dr).      So  also  at  verses  9  and  13. 

15,  17.  Aorist  rendered  first  as  preterite  then  as  perfect, — 
"I  begat"  and  then"!  have  sent."  "  Should  have"  for 
"have."     Cf.  Luke  xvi.  31.  * 

V. 

1.  "Actually"  for  "  commonly"^  oAcaS".  (?) 

2.  Aorist,  coordinated  with  perfect  or  present,  is  rendered 
preterite  ;  but  cf.  iv.  8.  Better  render  in  the  perfect  (with 
the  A.  v.);  and  render  o  non'jffai,  afterwards,  by  "  Avho 
did,"  and  neither  (with  the  Revisers)  "had  done"  nor 
(with  the  A.  V.)  "hath  done." 

7.  "Hath  been  sacrificed"  for  "is  sacrificed"  =  fVi;^;;. 
Why  did  they  not  say,  as  they  are  apt  to  do  in  similar  con- 
nections, "  was  sacrificed  "? 

q.    "I   wrote  iinto  you"  (so  also   the  A.Y.)  =  i'yftaif^a. 


1.   CORINTHIANS.  133 

Why  not  "I  write"  or  "I   have  written  (in  my  epistle)  "? 
Cf.  verse  11,  "I  write"  =  £^pa:^ar. 

VI. 

2.  "  The  smallest"  =  i\axi<Sroov  :  no  article.  See  also 
Luke  xii.  26,  "  that  which  is  least"  ^=  iXaxiGtov  .•  but  cf. 
Luke  xvi.  10,  where  they  put  "  a  very  little"  for  "  the  least," 
so  as  to  be  faithful  in  it  ;  and,  while  in  the  two  other  cases 
they  had  a  simple  genitive  and  an  accusative  to  translate, 
in  this  last  they  have  the  preposition  iv. 

5.  "  Cannot  be  found"  for  "  is  not  among"=  ovk  i'vi  iv. 
Which  is  the  more  exact .'' 

11.  Aorists  rendered  preterite  (A.  V.  present  or  perfect). 
Is  not  the  perfect  better :  "  Ye  have  been  washed,  ye  have 
been  sanctified,"  etc.  1  The  state,  the  effects,  continue  ;  and 
the  apostle  is  not  conceiving  them  as  historical  facts  in 
some  distant  past. 

12.  ."Not  all  things  are"  for  "all  things  are  not"  = 
ov  Ttavta.  Right,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  by  chance ; 
for  at  X.  23  they  render  precisely  the  same  formula  "all 
things  are  not  ;"  see  also  2  Thess.  iii.  2  ;  i  Cor.  xv.  51,  etc. 
At  I  John  ii.  19,  with  the  margin,  they  seem  to  hold  to 
both  constructions. 

16.   "A  harlot"=  ri)  Ttopvi).     Cf.  Matt.  ii.  23. 

19.  "A  temple"  for  "the  temple."  Cf.  Gal.  ii.  8,  where 
"the  apostleship  of  the  circumcision"=  or^rocroAj/r  tz/S" 
nspiTOfxii^.  Here,  Canon  Westcott  thinks,  "the  temple" 
spoils  the  logic,  but  he  does  not  make  it  logically  clear. 
("Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,"  chap.  iii.  20). 

20.  "  Were  brought"  for  "are  brought."  (?)  And  so  at 
vii.  23. 

VII. 

II.  "  Bat  and  if  '=^  idv  6e  7cai,  also  at  verse  28  ;  and  so, 
for  el  dt  7iai,  2  Cor.  iv.  3  ;  i  Pet.  iii.  14.  Did  the  Revisers 
suppose  that,  in  retaining  the  old  translation  in  such  cases, 
they  were  rendering  every  one  of  the  Greek  particles  ?  It 
is  not  unlikely  that,  in  the  old  English,  "  but  and  if"  was 


134  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

a  corruption  of  the  pleonastic  "but  an  if."  Shakespeare 
often  uses  "  an  if  "  or  "  and  if"  for  simple  "  if." 

28.  "  And  I  would  spare  you"  for  "  but  I  spare  you"  = 
iyco  St  vjxwv  q)ei3o)A.ai.     Which  is  faithful  ? 

32.  "I  would  have  yovi"=^£Xoo  vpia?.  And  so  the 
A.  V. ; — very  good. 

34.  "In  body"  and  "in  spirit"  =r&5  Gojjxari  and  rc^ 
TtvEvjxari.     But  see  "  the  weeping  and  gnashing." 

40.  "I  think  that  I  also  have  the  Spirit  of  God"  for  "I 
think  also  that  I  have"=  (J'okoj  (Jt  nayco  fjfzr.  The  "I 
also"  is  the  immediate  subject  of  "think,"  and  not  of 
"  have," 

VIII. 

5.  "No  God  but  one."  Elsewhere  they  have  often  sub- 
stituted "save"  for  "  but"=  n  fxr'] :  as  at  Mark  x.  8.  "  No 
idol  is  (anything)"  for  "an  idol  is  nothing;" — Greek 
purism.  What  is  the  difference  ?  If  "anything"  must  be 
inserted  after  "no,"  how  much  does  it  differ  from  "noth- 
ing" after  all .'  Did  faithfulness  to  God's  word  require  this 
exhibition  of  a  knowledge  of  the  niceties  of  Greek  con- 
struction ? 

7.  "That  knowdedge"=7/  yvc^ffii.  "  0/ a  thing  sacri- 
ficed to"  for  "as  a  thing  offered  unto."  Why  translate 
the  accusative  as  a  genitive.  Did  faithfulness  either  to 
God's  word  or  to  the  Greek  construction  require  it  ? 

10,  "To  eat  things  sacrificed  to  idols"  for  "to  eat 
those  things  which  are  offered  to  idols"=rc^  siSaiXoBvTa. 
But  what  of  the  Greek  article,  and  faithfulness  besides  ? 
Suppose  the  A.  V.  had  had  the  Revisers'  rendering,  Avith 
what  articular  faithfulness  they  would  have  changed  it ! 
"  Sacrificed"  for  "offered,"  throughout  here,  is  consequen- 
tial, but  is  it  necessary.'' 

11.  "Through"=  f'r. 

IX. 

10.  "  Altogether"  =  rravT GO?.  This  word  here  should 
have  been  translated  "  by  all  means,"  as  at  verse  22.  The 
apostle  does  not  mean  to  say  that,  in  that  precept  of  the 


/.   CORINTHIANS.  135 

law,  God  had  no  regard  at  all  to  the  protection  of  oxen  ; 
but  that,  in  it,  there  is  by  all  means  contained  a  principle 
of  far  higher  and  wider  application. 

12.  "  Did  not  use"  for  "  have  not  used  ;" — here  in  imme- 
diate correlation  with  present  tenses. 

15.  "  Write"  for  "  have  written," — an  aorist.  (?)  "  May 
be  so  done"  for  "'  should  (or  might)  be  so  done"^  yivtpai. 
"  Than  that  any  man  should  make  void"=  ?/  ov6e\z  Hevcoaei. 
This  is  their  text,  negative,  future,  and  all. 

X. 

1.  "I  would  not  have  you"  for  "  I  would  not  that  ye 
should  be"=5£Aa?  vpia'S :  and  so  at  xiv.  5.  But  see  Luke 
xix.  14,  and  i  Tim.  ii.  4,  corrected  contrariw.se !  "Were 
all"  for  "  all  were"=  TToryrf?  yffav. 

2.  "Baptized  unto," — eii  :  "into,"  in  margin.  Why? 
Not  so  elsewhere.     See  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 

13.  "  Such  as  man  can  bear"  for  "  such  as  is  common  to 
man"==  «y5pcj?;rz>'03  =  "  human,"  "which  is  incident  to 
the  condition  of  humanity,"  "  which  pertains  to  the  common 
lot  of  man."  Anything  more  is  not  derived  from  the  word 
itself,  but  is  imported  into  it. 

15.  "  A  communion"  for  "  the  communion," — in  the  pred- 
icate.  (?) 

iS.  "  Have  communion"  for  "  are  partakers"  =  hoivodvo\ 

23.  "  All  are  not"=OL'  navra.  But  see  the  logically  cor- 
rect rendering  of  the  same  phrase  at  vi.  12;  and  cf.  Wiclif. 

XI. 

I.  "Imitators"  for  "followers."  A  question  of  simple 
English  idiom  and  usage. 

II,  12.  "The  woman  and  the  man  ;"  twice  without  the 
article,  and  twice  with  the  article  (in  Greek).  Consequen- 
tial ? 

13.  "Judge  ye"  for  "  judge":^  npivate. 

14.  The  Revisers  have  done  well  to  retain  here  (with  the 
A.  V.)  the  word  "nature"  for  cpvGiZ.  According  to  the 
usage  of  Aristotle,  the  teaching  of  "  nature"  {cpvGi-)  might 


136  NOTES  ON    THE   LATE  REVISION. 

mean,  in  the  Greek  of  any  period,  "the  best  sentiment," 
the  teaching  of  "  the  liighest  civilization,"  of  that  period. 
Arist.  Polit.  (Sir  Alexander  Grant). 

30.  "  The  Lord's  Supper;" — no  article  in  the  Greek,  but 
cf.  X.  4,  "a  spiritual  rock,"  and  with  this  Heb.  xii.  22. 

21.  Here  the  Oxford  edition  of  the  Revisers'  Greek  text 
has  in  for  iv \  translated  "in"  (your  eating). 

29.  "If  he  discern  not"  =  /<;/  diaupLycjv :  but  cf.  Heb. 
vi.  6. 

XII. 

13.  "Were  baptized"  for  "  are  (have  been)  baptized;" 
"  were  made"  for  "  have  been  made  ;"  (?)  "of  one  spirit" 
=  eV  Ttrsvpia, — no  "of." 

15,  16.  "  The  hand"=X6/p  .• — why  not  "a  hand"? 

18.  "  Hath  set"  =  £'S>^fro  .•  and  then  "pleased"  for  "hath 
pleased'' =?/5£A7;o'fr.   (?) 

24.   "Tempered"  for  "  hath  tempered."  (?) 

XIII. 

5.  "  JL\i\"  =  TO  Kaxov  :  "  taketh  account  oi"  =  Xoyi- 
^£Tai, — not  "  reckoneth." 

1 1.  "  Now  that"=  ore  ("  When  I  am  become").  "  Felt" 
==  etppovovv.  (?) 

12.  "In  a  m\rrov"==di  f'o'o;rrpou  ="  through  (or  by 
means  of)  a  mirror;  "   cf.  "  through  the  prophets." 

XIV. 

I.  "Yet"  for  "and"=di.     Why? 

S.  "War"  for  "  battle"  =  TToAfyuor.  The  trumpet  was 
usually  sounded  for  battle  and  not  for  war;  and  will  not 
7roAf//o?  bear  tliat  sense  ?  In  Homer  and  Ilcsiod  the  signifi- 
cation "  battle"  prevails  ;  in  the  later,  and  in  the  Attic  Greek 
especially,  that  of  "war;"  but  not  so  that  it  ever  became 
obsolete  in  the  former  sense. 

II.  "If  then"  for  "  therefore  if,"  in  the  protasis.  What 
is  the  logic  of  the  difference? 

19.  "  Ilowbeit'' for  "  yet"=«fAAar.     At  our  wits' end,  we 


I.   CORINTHIANS.  137 

humbly  ask,  can  it  be  that  "  faithfulness"  required  this 
change  ? 

21.  "  By"  for  "with''=fV.  (?)  And  why  did  they  not 
say  "  in,"  by  way  of  consequence  ? 

35.    "Would  learn"  for  "will  learn"==S^£AoL'a'zr. 

■^().  "What?"=7.  Butcf.  X.  22;  vi.  9,  16,  19;  Rom.  ix. 
31  ;  vi.  3,  etc. 

37.   "  The  commandment''  =  bvtoXt]. 

XV. 

6.  ''  Of  whom  the  greater  part"=  01  ttXsIov?  :  but  cf.  x.  5, 
where  they  render  "  most  of  them."  "Are  fallen  asleep," 
— an  aorist. 

15,  16,  etc.  "Are  raised"  for  "rise"  =  fyf/poyr^z.  The 
old  story  come  again;  but  see  Matt,  xxviii.  6,  7,  etc.,  etc. 

17.  "  Yet"=  in  :  why  not  change  it  to  "  still,"  as  so  often 
elsewhere.''     Cf.  Rom.  ix.  19. 

20-36.  "The-  dead,"  "first-fruits,"  "the  first-fruits," 
"the  resurrection  of  the  dead,"  "the  last  enemy," — all 
alike  anarthrous  in  the  Greek,  Why  not  say  "  all  the  ene- 
mies," like  "  all  the  nations"=  Ttavra?  tov5  exS'povs.  They 
say  "all  his  enemies,"  but  quaere? 

37.  "Put"  for  "  hath  put;"  but  a  coordinated  perfect 
form  immediately  follows,  and  immediately  after  that  a 
subjunctive  aorist  which  they  themselves  render  as  a  per- 
fect (future) ; — DTtara^sv,  vvtorttaKTai,  VTtotayrj.  For 
the  repetitions  in  the  English  here,  cf.  Matt.  xxii.  3,  etc. 

31.  Why  not  arrange  the  clauses  after  the  order  of  the 
Greek,  instead  of  inverting,  and  begin  with  "  I  die  daily" 
etc.  ?  Is  not  the  order  of  the  Greek  a  sacred  trust  to  faith- 
fulness?    Cf.  Mark  v.  15,  etc. 

2S'  "Evil  company"  for  "evil  communications"  ^  o/nA/az 
Kauai.  Well  enough,  but  Vv'hat  faithfulness  required  a 
change  from  the  more  to  the  less  literal  ? 

36.  "Thou  foolish  one"  for  "thou  iooV  =  aqjpojv. 
"Thou  fool"  may  be  too  strong,  but  "thou  foolisli  one"  is 
quite  too  weak ;  and,  besides,  is  a  phrase  which  no  English 
writer  would  employ  under  such  circumstances. 

38.  "Pleased"  for  "hath  pleased,"  (?).    "  Of  his  own"  for 


138  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

"  his  own"  =  i'Siov.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  simply  '^  a 
body  that  shall  henceforth  belong  to  it,"  but  ""its  appropri- 
ate body,"  whereby  it  is  distinguished  from  all  other  bodies, 
or  kinds  of  bodies.  And  for  the  matter  of  the  article,  see 
Rom.  ix.  7,2  Cor.  vi.  16  (cf.  Eph.  ii.  10);  Col.  iv.  15;  i 
Thess.  ii.  11  (cf.  ii.  7);  etc. 

44.  "  There  is  also  a  spiritual  body'=i'Gri  ual  Ttvevjua- 
rmov.     Is  this  the  faithful  place  for  the  "also".^ 

51.  "Not  all."  But  in  the  Greek  the  "not"  stands  after 
the  "  all"  and  is  joined  with  the  verb  ;  a  construction  which, 
by  universal  Greek  usage  (we  believe),  makes  a  universal 
negative.  The  "  we,"  as  appears  in  the  next  verse,  refers  to 
those  who  shall  be  alive  and  remain  at  the  coming  of  the 
Lord.  Of  such  the  apostle  here  declares  that  none  will 
need  to  die,  but  all  will  be  changed. 

54.  "  Is  swallowed  up"=  xa'TeTToBi^^ — si.?  vlKOb,  i.e.,  not 
"  victoriously,"  as  in  the  margin  (that  would  reduce  the 
magnificent  figure  to  mere  common-place) ;  but  "  by  vic- 
tory," or  "  in  victory,"  or  "into  victory"; — "victory  shall 
swallow  up  (or  swallow  down)  death ;"  /.<f.,  "  death  shall 
be  utterly  vanquished." 

XVI. 

7.  "I  do  not  wish"  for  "  I  will  not;"  rather  "  I  do  not 
choose"  or  "  it  is  not  my  purpose"  =ov  SfAoj. 

8.  "  I  will  tarry"  =a7tifj.ev(^=  "  I  shall  tarry." 

10.    "The  brother"  for  "  our  brother;"  cf.  2  Cor.  i.  i. 

I.  CORINTHIANS. 

I. 

I.  "  The  whole  of  "  for  "  all  "==  oA^  r7}.  Cf.  Matt.  iv.  23, 
24  ;  and  see  note  Matt.  xxii.  40. 

4.  "Them  that"  for  "them  which";  and  so  at  xiii.  2; 
Rom.  viii.  i,  xi.  22,  xii.  14;  but  "them  whxch'"  for  "them 
that,"  Gal.  iv.  5.  And  see  "  they  which,"  i  Cor.  ix.  13,  14  ; 
Rom.  ix.  .6;  Gal.  iii.  7,  9,  v.  12,  21  (at  24,  "they  that"), 
etc.,  etc.;  "they  that,"  i  Cor.  xv.  23,  48;  Rom.  xvi.  18; 
Matt.  V.  4,  etc.,  etc.;  "they  who,"  Rom.  xv.  21  ;  "him  who," 


//.   CORINTHIANS.  139 

Rom.  xiv,  14;  "her  which,"  and  "he  that,"  Gal.  iv.  27, 
29  ;  "  he  which,"  2  Cor.  iv.  14;  "  he  that"/<?r  "  he  which," 
Gal.  i.  33;  "them  \^\\o"  for  "them  which,"  Gal.  ii.  2; 
"them  \.\\^\!"  for  "them  who,"  Gal.  vi.  10  and  Rom.  ii.  7; 
"  we  which,"  2  Cor,  iv.  11  and  Heb.  iv.  3  ;  "  us  which,"  i 
Cor.  i.  iS  ;  "we  that,"  2  Cor.  v.  4  ;  "ye  wliich,"  Gal.  vi. 
1  ;  but  "  you  that"/!?/-  "  you  who,"  2  Thess.  i.  7  ;  "  the  things 
that"/(?r  "the  things  which,"  i  Cor.  i.  27,  28  and  2  Cor. 
xi.  30  ;  "the  things  which  " /<?r  "the  things  that,"  i  Cor. 
xiv.  37,  and  cf.  2  Cor.  iv.  18;  "the  Spirit  which,"  i  Cor. 
ii,  12;  "  the  grace  which,"  iii.  10;  "  thee  which,"  viii.  10; 
but  "thou  tha.V'  for  "thou  which,"  Rom.  ii.  21,  and  "thou 
who"  for  "thou  that"  at  verse  23. — And  so  on  and  on 
in  infi7iitum  j — a  perfect  medley  of  inconsistencies ;  at  least 
to  our  poor,  untutored  apprehension.  In  making  their 
corrections  the  learned  Revisers  may  have  assumed  some 
arbitrary  principle  of  distinction  in  their  use  of  who,  which 
and  that,  but  certainly  none  tt)  which  they  have  themselves 
adhered  throughout ;  nor,  if  they  had,  could  any  changes  in 
the  English  have  been  required  at  all  by  differences  in  the 
Greek  mode  of  expression  which  made  no  difference  in  the 
sense.     Above,  such  differences  are  scarcely  found. 

12.  "  We  behaved  ourselves"  for  "we  have  had  our  con- 
versation" =  aVfa'rp«^;///fK.  Cf,  Eph.  ii.  3,  where  they 
render  "  we  lived," 

17,   "  Shew"  for  "  use"  =  ^XP^I^^MV^- 

23.  "  Forbare  to  come"  for  "  came  not  as  yet"==  ovueri 
?/XBov.     Specimens  of  faithfulness. 

II- 

13.  "I  had"  =E6X'>l'^oCi — i^ot  "  I  have  had,"  So  at  vii,  5  ; 
and,  at  Gal.  iii.  17,  "which  came"  =0  ysyoroj?:  Heb.  xi. 
28,  "he  kept"  =7r€7toiT]K£.  But  here,  at  i.  9,  they  had  just 
carefully  substituted  "  have  had"  for  "  had"  =  fa'j;77i:a'/<£K: 
and  then  immediately,  ''we  have  set  our  hope"  for  "  we 
trust"  ==  7/A7r/Ka'/i£r.  But  "we  have  set  our  hope"  is 
not  equivalent  to  "we  have  hoped,"  but  rather  to  "  we 
hope"  or   "  we   trust ;"  so    that    their  elaborate   change   of 


I40  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

rendering  is,  after  all,  only  a  scmhhvice  (to  use  no  harsher 
word)  of  conformity  to  the  tense  of  the  original. 

15.  "In  them  that  are  being  saved"  =  fV  ro??  60)2,0- 
y.tvoii.     Cf.  Luke  xiii.  23,  etc. 

III. 

3.  ^^  MXrasterQA"  =- diaK0vi]^s7Ga,  "  written"  =  fy^/s- 
ypajXfXEvii.  Here  aorist  and  perfect  are  co-ordinated  and 
rendered  alike. 

6.  "A  new  covenant,"  "the  letter,"  "the  spirit."  No 
article  in  either  case. 

7.  "Look  steadfastly  upon"  for  "steadfastly  behold"  == 
arsvLffai.  Cf.  Acts  vi.  15,  where  ''  looking  steadfastly  on" 
is  changed  to  "fastening  their  eyes  on."  Truly  these  Re- 
visers are  hard  to  please. 

7-11.  "With  glory"  ==fV  86c^\)  and  6icx  So^i]?:  "In 
glory"  ==  So^ij  and  sv  do^ij. 

10.  "  Surpasseth"  for  "excelleth."  How  vastly  impor- 
tant! 

12.   "  Such  a  hope"  for  "  such  hope." 

11,  13.  They  render  ro  Karcxpyovjxsvov  "that  which 
passeth  away,"  and  then,  "  that  which  was  passing  away" 
— both  alike  connected  with  past  tenses. 

18.  "  From  the  Lord  the  Spirit"  for  "  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord"  =  aTto  Kvpiov  Uvev/xaTOo.  {?)  This  is  the  marginal 
reading  of  the  A.  V. 

IV. 

I.  "  Therefore  seeing  we  have  this  ministry."  Cf.  iii.  12, 
"having  therefore  such  a  hope,"  and  Rom.  v.  i,  "being 
therefore  justified,"  etc.,  etc.  It  seems  tiierefore  that  the 
English  is  admitted  to  allow  either  construction  of  "  there- 
fore ;"and  it  is  merely  a  servile  following  of  tlie  Greek  or- 
der, if,  when  we  use  the  same  word  in  English,  we  put  it 
first  when  it  translates  did  touto,  and  second  when  it  stands 
for  ovv.  The  English  style  is  not  improved  ;  the  English 
sense  is  not  affected.  In  an  independent  translation,  this 
would  be  servility  ;  and  yet,  if  the  translator  chose  to  wear 
the  yoke,  we  might  find  no  fault  with  his  work.     But   is  it 


//.  CORINTHIANS.  141 

not  more  than  servility  when  such  meaningless  changes  are 
foisted  into  the  revision  of  a  received  translation  by  men 
who  profess  to  act  under  the  rule  of  "  making  as  few  altera- 
tions as  possible,  consistently  with  faithfulness"?  ''Ob- 
tained" for  "have  received  ;" — it  is  subordinate  to  a  present 
tense,  and  is  immediately  followed  by  "  have  renounced"  = 

4.  "Hath  blinded"  =  an  aorist ;  but  at  verse  6,  again, 
*'shined"  for  "hath  shined"  =  another  aorist. 

13.  "Therefore"  ^810  (bis).  But  cf.  Rom.  ii.  i  ;  iv.  22, 
etc.,  etc,  where  they  have  carefully  changed  "  therefore"  to 
"wherefore,"  the  sense  remaining  unchanged  in  all  the 
cases.     Their  faithfulness  seems  to  have  failed  them  here. 

V. 

I.  "The  earthly  house  of  our  tabernacle"  for  "our 
earthly  house  of  this  tabernacle"  ==  i]  iniyEWi  ijjxc^y  oucia 
rov  anijvovi.  The  "  our"  belongs  (with  A.  V.)  to 
"  house,"  and  not  to  "  tabernacle  ;"  and  had  they  any  busi- 
ness to  change  its  place  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  "///«"  inserted 
in  the  A.  V.?  They  themselves  put  "  this"  oftentimes  for  the 
mere  article,  as  immediately  below,  at  verse  4,  with  this  very 
"tabernacle;"  also  at  viii.  4,  with  "grace,"  where  the  A. 
V.  has  the  simple  article  like  the  Greek.  And  when  they 
thus  use  "  this"  they  do  not  modestly  put  it  in  italics  as  does 
the  A.  V. 

5.  "Wrought"  and  "gave"  for  "have,"  etc.  (?) 
7.    "  By"  (twice)  ==  dioc. 

10.  "In"  =  ^z«'.     "Hath  done," — an  aorist. 

II.  "  Are  made  manifest,"  perfect  tense. 

12.  "  To  answer"  is  italicized  in  the  A.  V.,  but  not  here ; 
although  it  is  not  in  the  text. 

13.  Aorist  and  present  coordinated,  and  both  translated 
as  present.     Cf.  John  xvii. 

14.  "All  died"  for  **  ail  were  dead' '  =  aitt'^avov.  Should 
it  not  be  with  Tyndal,  "  all  are  dead"  ?  The  life  of  those 
"  which  live"  (in  verse  15)  is  a  present  life  and  not  a  past 
event,  and  yet  it  is  as  intimately  connected  with  Christ's  re- 


142  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

surrection  as  our  death  is  with  his  death.  Our  death  to  sin  is 
just  as  much  a  present,  continuous  fact,  as  our  life  to 
righteousness.  The  former  is  no  more  ideally,  constructive- 
ly, or  prolepticaily  identified  with  Christ's  death  as  a  his- 
torical fact,  than  the  latter  is  with  Christ's  resurrection  as 
such  a  fact,  Christ  died,  we  are  dead  ;  Christ  rose,  we  live  ; 
— cf.  next  verse. 

17.  "  Are  passed  away"  =  Trrrpi/ASfr,  and  "are  become 
new"  ==  ytyove  :  aorist  and  perfect  coordinated  and  both 
rendered  perfect.  The  first,  the  "  are  passed  away,"  corre- 
sponds exactly  to  the  "are  dead"  {aTTt^avov)  ;  and  the 
"  are  become  new"  to  the  new  life  {01  ^c^vres). 

As  regards  doctrinal  considerations,  whether  of  predes- 
tination or  of  baptismal  regeneration,  in  determining  the 
translation  of  this  and  kindred  passages  (as  Rom.  vi.  3-1 1  ; 
Col.  ii.  11-15,  and  iii.  3),  every  man  will  exercise  his  own 
judgment  or  may  be  swayed  by  his  own  bias  ;  but  if,  in  that 
connection,  authority  is  appealed  to, — authority  we  now 
mean,  not  of  Greek  scholarship,  but  as  to  the  bearing  of 
dogmatical  questions,  upon  the  translation  of  these  pas- 
sages,— surely  the  consenting  authority  of  ail  the  old  trans- 
lators, of  Luther  and  De  Sacy,  of  Wiclif  and  Tyndal,  of 
the  Genevan,  the  Bishops',  and,  notably,  the  Rhemish  ver- 
sions, as  well  as  of  the  the  forty-seven  translators  of  161 1, 
may  be  boldly  held  as  high  as  that  of  the  learned  authors 
of  the  late  Revision.  The  laws  of  the  Greek  aorist  decide 
nothing  in  favor  of  the  Revisers — themselves  being  wit- 
nesses upon  the  spot — see  napifkOiv  ;  the  most  diversified 
r-hades  of  theological  thought  consent  in  deciding  against 
them.     Let  this  be  said  once  for  all. 

20.  "  We  are  ambassadors,  therefore"  for  "  now  then  we 
are  ambassadors  {iorC\\r\s\)"  =  {v7rhpXpiGrov)  ovv  itpEG- 
ftevojAEv.  So  it  seems  that  when  the  A.  V.  puts  "then" 
(=  therefore)  as  a  translation  for  ovv,  next  the  first  word 
of  the  sentence  a  la  grccque,  the  Revisers  can  put  their 
"therefore"  further  on,  and  where  the  Greek  does  not  put 
it ;  though  they  have  generally  been  so  fastidious  in  cor- 
recting the  A.  V.  elsewhere  by  puttingthe  "  therefore"  (for 
ovv)  next  after  the  first  word  or  two,  as  in  the  Greek.  Why 


//.   CORINTHIANS.  143 

did  they  not  say, — if  they  must  alter  the  A.  V., — "  We  are, 
therefore,"  etc.?  Or,  more  faithful  still,  "For  Christ, 
therefore,  are  we  ambassadors"  ?     Cf.  Phil.  iii.  15,  ad  fin. 

VI. 

2.  "A  day  of  salvation"  for  "  the  day,"  etc.  But  why 
change  ?  One  thing  is  clear ;  the  absence  of  the  Greek 
article  does  not  require  the  change.  Cf.  Matt.  ii.  i  ;  x.  15; 
xi.  22,  24;  xii.  36:  Rom.  ii.  5;  Eph.  iv.  30;  Phil.  i.  6;  i 
Thess.  V.  3  ;  Heb.  viii.  8,  9;  1  Pet.  ii.  12  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  9  ;  iii.  7, 
etc.,  etc.,  where  they  say  "the  day''  for  no  Greek  article, 
and  see  immediately  below,  where  they  say  "  the  day  of 
salvation,"  and  no  article.  In  Isaiah,  the  A.  V.  has  "  a 
day,"  but  surely  that  cannot  control  the  translation  here. 

16.  "A  temple  of  God"  for  "the  temple,"  etc.  (twice). 
But,  in'the  first  place,  the  complex  expression  vaoz  Osov, 
both  words  being  without  an  article,  may  mean  "  the  tem- 
ple of  God;"  and  in  the  second  instance  the  words  are  in 
the  predicate;  morefiver,  if  the  Revisers  would  be  consis- 
tent, they  should  have  said  "a  temple  of  a  living  God."  Cf. 
I  Thess.  i.  9. — "  My  people"  = /aov  Xa 6?  (no  art).  Why  did 
they  not  say  "a  people  of  mine"  ^  Cf.  1  Cor,  xv.  38  ;  Rev. 
iii.  2. 

VII. 

5.  "  Had,"  for  a  perfect.     See  Gal.  iii.  17,  note. 

6.  "  He  that  comforteth  .  .  .  .  even  God"  for '*  God  that 
comforteth." 

7.  "  By"  =  ev  (thrice).      Why  so  ? 

8.  "With"  =ev,  and  why  ? 

10.  "Which  bringeth  no  regret"  =  a/A£Ta/J.e\r^TOv  = 
"  which  is  not  to  be  regretted,"  or  "  repented  of." 

11.  "  Concerning  you"  ==  fV  i;/f?K.  The  Revisers  seem 
to  claim  for  themselves  no  small  liberty  in  translating  the 
Greek  prepositions.  They  are  therefore  bound  to  respect 
an  equal  liberty  in  others,  even  in  the  A.  V. 

VIII. 

4.  "  In  regard  of  this  grace"  =  r?/?'  x^P'-^-  Would  not 
"  for"  be  better — "  beseeching  us  for  the  grace  and  the  par- 


144  NOTES  ON   THE   LATE   REVISION. 

ticipation   in,"  etc.  ?     There    is   nothing    in  the  Greek  for 
their  "this"  but  ri)v  :  cf.  v.  i. 

5.  "Had  hoped"  for  "  hoped' "  ^  7/A;t/(7a'//£k.  But  see 
Acts  vii.  44,  wliere  they  change  "  had  appointed"  to  "  ap- 
pointed ;"  also  Matt.  xvi.  5  ;  Marie  viii.  14,  where  they 
change  in  like  manner.  Cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  16  ;  Luke  xxii.  13; 
xxiv.  24, — where  the  pluperfect  is  retained,  as  also  in  the 
next  verse. 

6.  "  Had  made  a  beginning  before"  for  "  had  begun"  = 
7tpo^viipB,aro  : — "in  you"  ==  £z5.  rjpia?. : — "complete"  for 
"finish"  =  STrirsXlffi],  but  the  simple  "  finish"  corresponds 
to  "'beginning"  as  "complete"  would  correspond  to  "com- 
mencement." 

10.  "  Were  the  first  to  make  a  beginning"  for  "  have  be- 
gun before"  =  Trpofr^/p^a'cS'f.  But  see  their  version  at 
verse  6. 

12.  "A  man  hath"  ==  exil-  Thus  riS  is  understood  ;  but  see 
Heb.   X.  38. 

13.  "  By  equality"  =  €$  iff6T7]To<i."*  Is  it  not  "from  re- 
gard to  equality"  1 

16.  "Which  putteth"  for  "which  put."  Does  not  the 
connection  liere  favor  the  past  ?  Cf.  Rev.  viii.  9;  xix.  19, 
21  ;  John  xiii.  1 1. 

17.  "  Our"  for  "the"  =  ri'jv.  "  Very  earnest"  ==  Gnov- 
6(xi6repo? :  but  cf.  Acts  xvii.  22. 

18.  "  Have  sent," — an  aorist. 

20.  "  That  any  man"  for  "  that  no  man"  =  jua/ rz5  =  "  lest 
any  man."     Cf.  Acts  x.  47. 

33.  "  The  great  confidence  v^h\c\\"  =  nETtoiSyffei  noWri 
tIj.  Cf.  their  wrestling  with  a  similar  construction  at 
Gal.  ii.  20. 

33.  "The  messengers  of  the  churches"  and  "  the  glory 
of  Christ."  No  art.  in  Gr.  Cf.  i  Cor.  vi.  19  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16  ; 
Mark  iii.  17,  etc.,  etc. 

IX. 

2.  "Readiness"  for  "  forwardness  of  mind"  =  ;rpo5t;/^/n'. 
"Prepared"  for  "  rc3.dy"  =  TrapsffjtevaaTai  (so  also  at 
verse  3).     "  Hath  stirred   up"  for  "  hath  provoked' '  =  ?/pt~ 


//.   CORINTHIANS.  145 

S^zCf, — an    aorist    coordinated   with    a    perfect ;    cf.    John 
xvii. 

3.  "Have  sent," — an  aorist. 

5.  "I  thought  it  necessary  therefore"  for '*  therefore  I 
thought  it  necessary."  But  wherefore  did  the  Revisers 
think  the  change  necessary?  "  Intreat"  for  "  exhort"  = 
napaKaXtGai  .•  but  for  the  very  same  word  in  the  very  same 
sense,  at  viii.  6,  "exhorted"  is  substituted  for  "  desired." 
See  Phil.  iv.  2,  note. 

9.  Aorists  =  perfects,  in  poetry. 

X. 

I.  "Intreat"  for  "  beseech  ;"  the  difference?  See  again 
Phil.  iv.  2,  note. 

4.  "Before  God"  for  "through  God"^rc5  0£c5.  (?) 
The  margin  of  the  A.  V.  suggests  "to  God." 

7.  "  Consider"  =  Ao;/z<2fa'S'ciL>, — not  "count"  nor  "reck- 
on."    Cf.  verse  11,  where  they  have  "  reckon"  for  "  think." 

8.  "  Abundantly"  for  "  more"  =  TTspiGGorepov.  What 
then  would  Ttepwffc^i  mean  ?  Cf.  i  Cor.  xii.  23,  34 ;  xv. 
10 ;  3  Cor.  i.  12  ;  ii.  4,  etc.  For  the  tenses  here  and  at  xii. 
6,  cf.  Luke  xvi.  30,  31  (A.  V.) 

10.  "They  say"  =  q)7]Gi  ("saith  he,"  the  false  teacher)  ? 
"Strong"  for  "  powerful"  == /o'^i^por/."  so,  at  i  Cor.  i.  27 
and  Rev.  x.  i,  xviii.  10,  21,  they  substitute  "strong"  for 
"mighty;"  at  xviii.  3,  "mighty"  for  "strong,"  and  they 
retain  "mighty"  at  Matt.  iii.  11  ;  Mark  i.  7;  Luke  iii. 
16;  XV.  14;  Rev.  xix.  6,  18,  etc.  The  nicety  of  their  dis- 
criminating faithfulness  is  worthy  of  all  admiration. 

12.  "  Are  without  understanding"  for  "are  not  wise"  == 
ov  Gvviovaiv.  (?)  That  changes  the  negative  construction 
and  thus  modifies  the  sense. 

13.  "Province"  for  "  rule"  =  Korroro?.  Marg.,'^  Gr. 
measuring  rod." 

16.    "  Farts"  ior  ^' regions"  =v7r£psH€iva.  (?) 

XI. 

5.  Marg.,  "Those  preeminent  apostles"  =  rcSi'  VHSp- 
Xiav  anoGxokcov.     Whence  is  the  "  those"  derived  ? 

13.    "Fashioning"    for    "transforming"  =  jxsraffxvf^^' 


146  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

riZojxsvoi.  So  at  14  and  15.  But  what  has  become  of 
the  i.i£ra  ? 

21.   "We  had  been  weak"  =  ija^rsv/fxafxev. 

23.  "  One  beside  himself"  for  "  a  fool"  =  napaqypov^v. 
Elsewhere  they  have  used  this  same  phrase  for  iuGTai 
(Mark  iii.  21);  but  they  have  declined  to  use  it  (with  the 
A,  V.)  for  /xaiv6j.i£vo?  at  Acts  xxvi.  24. 

26.  "The  Gentiles,"  €^  i^vc2)v.  (No  art.)  So  "the 
wilderness,"  "  the  sea,"  "the  city;"  while  "  rivers,"  "rob- 
bers," "false  brethren"  are  rendered  without  the  article 
in  English. 

XII. 

2.  "Know"  for  "knew"  =  016  a :  but  consider  the 
"fourteen  years  ago."  "In  the  body"  =  eV  aoofxari  : 
"out  of  the  body"  =  f'^ToS  rov  Goafxaroz :  "the  third 
heaven,"  no  article. 

4.  "Into  Paradise  ==  f/5  rov  IT.  Are  not  the  Revisers 
still  too  much  under  the  influence  of  the  Latin  idiom  ? 
Might  not  faithfulness  revolutionize  the  English  language 
a  little  further, — after  "  the  weeping  and  gnashing," — and 
say  "  into  the  Paradise"  .'' 

5.  "Save"  for  "but"  =  fz/i7.  Why  not  "but  only,"  as 
at  Luke  iv.  26,  27  ?  "  On  mine  own  behalf  I  will  not  glory" 
is  absolute.  The  exception  is  made  to  a  more  general 
proposition  implied,  as,  "  Neither  will  Iglory  at  all  except," 
etc.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  to  say  that  the  only  case 
in  which  he  will  glory  in  his  own  behalf  is  when  he 
glories  in  the  cross  of  Christ ;  yet  this  is  just  what  the  Re- 
visers make  him  say.     On  the  other  hand  the  A.  V.  gives 

nhe  true  sense,  as  the  Revisers  have  done  in  St.  Luke. 

6.  "  If  I  should  desire  I  shall  not  be;" — is  that  good 
English  ?     See  also  x.  8,  and  cf.  Luke  xvi.  30,  31. 

9.  "Power"  for  "strength"  =  dvvaptii.  "Strength" 
for  "  power"  =  dvvajui?  !  ! 

11.  Marg.,  "Those  preeminent  apostles"  again.  What 
"  preeminent  apostles"  ?     "  Those"  .^ 

12.  "An  apostle"  =  roO  aTtoarokov.    See  "the  sower.'' 

13.  "  Except  it  be"  =fz  }xr}.     Right  (with  A.  V.). 


GALA  TIANS.  147 

16.  "I  myself"  for  "I."     Cf.  verses  11,  13,  15. 

17.  "  Take  any  advantage"  for  "  make  a  gain"  =iK7tXe- 
ovEKTrjffa,   (?) 

18.  "  Exhorted"  for  "  desired"  =  nap^KaXsaa.  Cf.  ix.  5  ; 
X.  1;  Phil.  iv.  2,  note.  "The  brother"  for  "a  brother;" 
article  in  Greek,  but  not  natural  in  English;  see  verse  12. 
"By"  for  "in  ;"  and  then,  " in." 

19.  "  Are"  inserted  for  "  we  do."  May  not  the  "  are"  be 
stretched  too  far  ?  Might  not  some  things  happen  which 
would  not  be  for  their  edifying  ?  Remember  how  carefully 
they  change  the  place  of  "  still"  at  John  xi.  20. 

20.  "  Should  find"  for  "  shall  find"  =  ei)p&7  .•  and  "should 
be  found,"  etc.  Is  this  good  English  in  this  construction  ? 
They  themselves  often  render  the  subjunctive  aorist  by  a 
future. 

XIII. 

I.  "Two  witnesses  or  three"  for  "two  or  three  wit- 
nesses." But  why  not  say  "  and  three" .''  The  Greek  is  nai 
rpicSv.  The  xai  may  be  of  consequence,  but  the  Greek 
order  is  not.  At  all  events  the  nai  is  there;  and  their 
faithfulness  must  have  slept. 

4.  "  Through"  =  e'v  (thrice). 

5.  "Or  know  ye  not  as  to  your  own  selves  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  in  you?"  for  "What!  know  ye  not  your  own 
selves  how  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you  ?"  The  A.  V.  fol- 
lows the  Greek,  except  the  "  how"  inserted  •,  and  they  took 
//  for  "what!"  not  "or."     Cf.  i  Cor.  xiv.  36,  note. 

GALATIANS. 

I. 

.8.  "Tarried"  for  " abode"  =  fW/^frvo:.  But  see  Phil, 
i.  24, — "  abide"  =  fVz/ifVfzr. 

19.  "But  only"  for  "save"  (marg.)  =  fz  fjirf.  Very 
well. 

23.  "But  they  only  heard  say"  for  "but  they  had  heard 
only."  Did  the  apostle  mean  that  all  they  did  was  to 
"hear  say,"  or  that  none  but  "they"  heard?  or  rather  that 


148  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

all  they  had  heard  about  him  was,  that,  etc.  ?    For  their  con- 
struction (in  orat.  recta)  of.  Matt.  ii.  23. 

II. 

I.  "After  the  space  of  fourteen  years"  for  "fourteen 
years  after"  =Sia  (14)  itc^v.   (?) 

5.  "In  the  way  of"  for  "by"  (subjection)  =  r7\ 
VTtOTayrj.     Say  "  by  way  of  "  ? 

8.  "The  apostleship  "  =  orTroaToA^v  tt}?.  Why  not 
"an  apostleship" ?  Cf.  i  Cor.  vi.  19.  There  a  predicate, 
here  with  si?.     And  see  Eph.  i.  14. 

9.  Does  the  utter  derangement  of  this  verse,  a  la  grccgjie, 
change  the  sense  or  improve  the  expression  ?  If  not,  what 
faithfulness  required  it .'  Cf.  2  Peter  iii.  i.  "  Should  go" 
ought  to  continue  italicized.  Other  words  might  be  in- 
serted instead,  as  "have  to  do  with,"  or  "preach  to,"  or 
"  exercise  apostleship  towards." 

16.  "Save  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ"  for  "but  by 
the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  ==  eav  j^r/  did  TTiffTecji  'ir/aov 
XpiGtov.  The  Revisers  have  rendered  "  the  faiths?/"  Jesus" 
at  Rev.  XIV.  12.  Their  "  save"  for  "  but"  makes  the  apostle 
say  that  "a  man  is  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  only 
when  he  is  justified  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and  not  by  the 
works  of  the  law  ;  for  by  the  works  of  the  law  shall  no 
flesh  be  justified"!  As  for  the  translation  of  edv  pirj  in 
general ; — at  Matt.  xxvi.  42  ("except  I  drink  it")  "  except" 
is  retained;  Mark  x.  30  ("but  he  shall  receive")  "but"  is 
retained;  as  also  at  John  v.  19,  "the  Son  can  do  nothing 
of  himself  but  what  he  seetli  the  Father  do."  Now  this 
passage  in  John  is  perfectly  parallel  with  that  here  in  Gala- 
tians,  as  regards  the  construction  of  edv  fxr).  "  The  Son 
can  do  nothing  of  himself  [this  is  absolute;  'nor  can  he 
do  anything  at  all'];  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do,  that 
the  Son  doeth."  If  in  English  we  put  "  save"  for  "but," 
we  must  either  supply  the  ellipsis  or  we  come  to  the  absurd 
statement; — "the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself  save  what 
he  seeth  the  Father  do,  f/iaf  the  Son  doeth  of  himself ;"  for 
the  last  clause  is  made  an  exception  out  of  the  first  proposi- 
tion, taken  as  it  stands.     This  is  the  same  sort  of  absurdity 


GALATIANS.  149 

as  actually  follows  from  their  translation  here  in  Galatians — 
a  translation  which  is  not  only  at  war  with  itself,  but  with 
the  whole  context,  and  with  the  whole  strain  of  the  apostle's 
teaching  in  this  epistle.  We  submit  that  the  meaning  of 
the  apostle  is,  "  A  man  is  not  justified  by  (the)  works  of 
(the)  law  [this  is  absolute;  'nor  is  a  man  justified  at  all 
save'] ;  but  through  the  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  by  that 
we  are  justified,  and  not  by  (the)  works  of  (the)  law ;  for 
by  (the)  works  of  (the)  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified."  In 
both  these  cases,  John  v.  19  and  Gal,  ii.  16,  the  Vulgate  has 
nisi  for  iav  fx/j.  But  in  both  cases,  Wiclif,  Tyndal,  Cranmer, 
the  Geneva,  and  even  the  Rhemish  version  read  "  but"  (with 
our  A.  V.) ;  and  the  last  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been 
warped  by  any  predilection  for  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  only. 

There  are  several  cases  of  the  use  of  ei  jxi)  perfectly  cor- 
responding to  the  foregoing  cases  of  iav  j.u) :  e.g.,  Luke 
iv.  26,  27  ;  Rev.  xxi.  37  ;  Rom.  xiv.  14.  It  is  remarkable 
that,  in  the  two  instances  in  St.  Luke,  while  the  A.  V.  has 
"  save"  and  "  saving,"  the  Revisers  have  very  properly,  but 
very  inconsistently,  changed  them  to  "but  only."  Also  in 
that  in  the  Revelation  they  have  put  "but  only"  for  "but,  " 
which  is  well  enough,  though  scarcely  necessary.  But  in 
Rom.  xiv.  14  they  have  capped  the  climax  of  incon 
sistency  by  changing  "  but"  into  "  save  that ;"  thus  making 
the  apostle  say,  "  Nothing  is  unclean  of  itself,  save  that  to 
him  that  accounteth  anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is 
unclean  of  itself."  Whereas  the  "but"  of  the  A.  V.  or 
their  own  "  but  only"  gives  the  exact  sense  of  the  original, 
for  both  the  si  /,(?}  (or  the  eav  /<?/)  and  the  ellipsis  that  is 
implied  with  it  are,  in  English,  briefly  and  idiomatically 
expressed  by  the  simple  "but"  or  "  but  only." 

In  their  corrections  of  the  translation  of  ei.  f-ii]  given  in 
the  A.  v.,  the  Revisers  are  in  many  instances,  as  we  have 
seen  (Luke  iv.  26,  note),  grossly  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves, besides  making  their  changes  unnecessarily. 

16,  17.  "  Believed"  for  "  have  believed"  =  inwravaa- 
jxsv.  "  We  sought"  for  "  we  seek"  =  2,t]rovvTE?.  "  Were 
found"  for  "  are  found"  =  svpt^rjfxev.   (?) 


150  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

19.  "Died"  for  "am  dead"  =  ant^avov :  but  see  "I 
have  been  crucified,"  next  after. 

20.  "  In  faith,  the  faith  which  is  in  the  Son  of  God"  for 
"  by  the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God' '  =  sv  Tiiffrsi  rfj  rov  viov 
rov  &€ov.  As  to  "in"  for  "of,"  cf.  Rev.  xiv.  12.  As  to 
f//e  faith,  cf.  Acts  i.  12  ;  3  Cor.  viii.  22  ;  2  Tim.  i.  i  ;  ii.  10  ; 
and  especially  iii.  15,  "through  faith  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus"  =  61a.  Ttiffrico?  rf~/5  ev  JCpiffrco  IrjGov,  not  "  through 
faitli,  the  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 

III. 

2,  5.  "  By"  =i^  (bis,  bis),  and  so  at  verse  24,  and  so  all 
along. 

3.  "  In"==  dat.  inst.,  for  "  by."  "  Perfected"  for  "  made 
perfect  ;" — faithfulness, 

6.  "  For  righteousness"  =  f  is  Sik.  This  is  one  of  many 
instances  which  may  be  compared  with  Mark  i.  4,  where 
they  put  "  unto"  for  "  for." 

7.  "  Which  be"  for  "  which  are"  =  "  who  are."  What 
faithfulness  required  this  multiplication  of  obsolete  expres- 
sions ? 

II.   "  By"  =  ev  :  also  at  verse  19. 

17,  18,  20.  "A"  for  "the"  (covenant);  "of  the  law;" 
no  articles.  "  Which  came"  =  o  yeyovoo^, — not  "  has  come." 
Cf.  verse  24.  See  also  Heb.  xi.  17.  28  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  13  ;  vii.  5  ; 
John  vi.  25  ;  Matt.  xiii.  46  ;  i  Pet.  i.  20  ;  Mark  xv.  47  (?)  ; 
— for  perfects  rendered  as  preterites.  "A  mediator  "  = 
o  i^Effiri]?. 

22.  "  Hath  shut"  =  (TvveKXeiffsv. 

23.  "Faith"  =  TTfv  Ttiffriv :  "the  law"  =  vojiov  : 
"  should  be"  =  "  was  about  to  be"  (with  A.  V.). 

24.  "  Hath  been"  for  "  was"  =  yiyovev  :  cf.  17. 

IV. 

3.  "  Were  hcld"=  ijjxev  deSovXcojaivoi,  pluperfect. 

5.  "  Born"  for  "  made"  =  yevojuevov  (bis)  ;  not  yeyst^- 

6.  "  Sent"  for  "  hath  sent,"  aorist,  but  (?). 

9.   "  Have  come  to  know"  for  "  have  known"  =  yvovrsi. 


GALATIANS.  151 

12.  "I  beseech  you,  brethren,"  for  "brethren,  I  beseech 
\ovi'  =  ad O^cpoi,  dtofxai  vj^c^v.     Cf.  2  Thess.  iii.  i. 

13.  "Because  of  for  "through."  But  what  is  the  re- 
sulting sense  ?  Is  not  the  meaning  expressed  by  "  through," 
or  "  in,"  or  "  notwithstanding  ;"  i.e.  "  though  impeded 
by,"  or  "in  spite  of"  ? 

33.  "  Is  born"  for  "  was  born"  ==  yeyevvrjTai.  This  is 
harsli.  Is  not  the  "  has  been  born"  here  historical,  and 
equivalent  to  "  was  born"  .'     Cf.  iii.  17. 

24.  Here  "women"  may  not  be  needed  ;  for  the  avrai 
("these")  may  be  feminine  by  attraction. 

29.  "  He  that  was  born"  =  6  y£yvr]^ei<S,  it  rightly  follows 
the  tense  of  the  connection.     Cf.  Matt.  ii.  2. 

V. 

I.  With  their  new  text,  would  not  the  most  simple  and 
natural  translation  be  :  "  To  freedom — Christ  hath  made 
us  free — stand  fast  therefore"  .'*  or,  better  accommodated 
to  the  English  idiom  :  "  Christ  hath  made  us  free ;  to  free- 
dom therefore  stand  fast"  ?  The  ovv  stands  after  Gtj^Ksrs 
instead  of  iXev^epla  because  it  is  first  suggested  by  the 
parenthetical  clause. 

4.  "  Ye  are  severed"  =  naTj]pyr)^T]ra.  The  A.  V.,  with 
its  inversion  of  subject  and  object,  is  nearer  the  sense  of 
the  original.  It  does  not  appear  that  ytarapyloo  ever  means 
properly  "  to  sever,' '  though  it  may  express  the  consequences 
of  severance.  "  Would  be  justified"  for  "  are  justified"  = 
diKaiovG^s :  but  is  this  translation  or  exposition  J  "  By 
the"  =  fV. 

5.  "The  Spirit,"  "the  hope;" — no  Jtrticle.  By  their 
change  of  construction,  in  avoiding  one  ambiguity  they 
have  fallen  into  another.  Why  not  say  :  "  For  we  through 
the  Spirit  await  by  faith  the  hope  of  righteousness"  } 

7.  They  say  "should  not"  for  the  accusative  with  the 
infinitive,  and  not  "did  not." 

13.  *'Be  servants"  =  dovXevers  : — not  "bond-servants," 
as  elsewhere;  sec  iv.  i,  8,  etc.  "Your  freedom"  =  r/^i' 
a\£V^epiav.  (?)  Why  not  also  "  your  love"  for  ry?  ayanrji} 

14.  "  Is  fulfilled"  ==  TteTtXj'jpoDtai  (for  TtXr/povrai).     "  The 


152  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

whole  law"  for  "  all  the  law"  =  o  nai  vop-oZ.  Cf.  Eph.  iv. 
16 — noLe. 

16  and  25.  "  By  the  Spirit"  for"  in  the  Spirit"  =ny£V).iari. 
But  see  iii.  3,  where  they  render  the  same  word  "  in  the 
Spirit."  "The"  (thrice)  for  no  article,  "the  Spirit,"  "the 
lust  of  the  flesh  ;"  while,  in  the  next  verse  the  Greek  has 
the  articles  with  all  these.     Yet  no  distinction  is  made. 

24.  "  Have  crucified' '  ==  eGtavpooGav.  Why  did  they  not 
say  "  crucified"  ?  Is  it  not  the  aorist  tense  ?  Cf.  Rom.  vi. 
6,  8;  2  Cor.  v.  14  ;  Col.  iii.  3.  "Thereof," — better  "its  (pas- 
sions and  lusts)." 

VI. 

I.  "  A  spirit"  for  "  the  spirit"  =  £v  Ttvevfxari. 

II.  "  Have  written,"  marg.,  "write," — aorist. 

13.  "  Keep"  =  (pvXaffffovaiv  :  cf.  Lukexi.  21  ;  Johnxvii. 
12  ;  Acts  xii.  4  ;  xxviii.  16  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  3  ;  i  Tim.  vi.  20  ; 
2  Tim.  i.  12,  14  ;  i  John  v.  21  and  Jude  24  ; — where  they 
render  if'  guard."  Their  faithfulness  must  have  exercised 
the  most  wonderful  discrimination,  as  will  be  seen  by  such 
cases  as  2  Tim.,  i  John,  and  Jude,  above  cited,  and  by  com- 
paring, say,  Acts  xxviii.  16  with  xxii.  20  and  xxiii.  35. — 
These  may  be  trifles,  but  they  are  chatiges^  and,  if  of  no 
importance,  are  wanton.  "The  law;"  marg.,  "a  law." 
Why  especially  here? 

14.  "Hath  been  crucified"  for  "is  crucified"  =  iVro't)- 
pcorai.     Cf.  V.  14,  etc. 

18.  For  displacement  of  "brethren"  here,  cf.  2  Thess. 
iii.  I. 

EPHESIANS. 

I. 

10.  "In  the  heavens"  for  "  in  heaven"  =  iv  roii  ovpavoi?. 
But  see  the  Lord's  Prayer,  etc. 

11.  "Having  been  foreordained"  for  "being  predesti- 
nated" =  TrpooprffBivTei,  and  so  at  verse  13  ;  but  see  verse 
18  and  ii.  20,  for  the  tense. 

13.  "The    Holy    Spirit"    for  "that    Holy    Spirit ;"— the 


EPHESIANS.  I  S3 

order  of  the  Greek  is,  "the  Spirit  of  promise,  the  Holy." 
Cf.  verse  19. 

14.  "An  earnest"  for  "  the  earnest"  =  o'pp^'/^&jr  r//;,  in 
predicate.  But  immediately  after  they  render  "the  re- 
demption" and  "the  praise"  without  Greek  article  and 
followed  by  r//;.     Cf.  Gal.  ii.  8. 

17.  "A  spirit"  for  "the  spirit,"  and  then  "the  knowl- 
edge," without  article. 

iS.  "  Having  the  eyes  enlightened"  =  7t£q)CJTiffi.iavov?. 
Did  they  suppose,  or  would  they  make  us  think,  that  this 
English  is  also  a  perfect  participle  .''     But  cf.  iv.  iS. 

19.  "  That"  for  "the"  =  r7T'.  But  cf.  verses  13  and  14, 
where  they  put  "  the"  for  "  that"  in  a  perfectly  similar  con- 
struction and  with  a  similar  exposure  to  ambiguity. 


II. 


2.  "  Aforetime"  for  "  in  time  past."     Why  ? 

3.  "  Lived"  for  "  had  our  conversation'''=  avs.6rfiacpr}}XBv. 
Cf.  2  Cor.  i.  12.  Is  "having  our  conversation"  any  more 
obsolete  or  unintelligible  than  "  or"  for  "  ere".'' 

S.  "Have  been  saved"  for  "are  saved"  ==  fVrf  (Xsacjff- 
jutvot.  Compare  "are  being  saved"  for  the  present  parti- 
ciple. To  what,  then,  shall  "  are  saved"  correspond  ?  And 
see  Gal.  iv.  3,  where  they  render  a  pluperfect  passive  "  were 
held,"  not  "had  been  held." 

12.  "Alienated  from"  for  "aliens  from"  =  orTr/j^AAo- 
rpioofxivoi.  Which  is  the  true  sense  1  And  they  do  not 
say  "  having  been  alienated"  for  the  perfect  participle,  but 
"(being)  alienated."     Cf.  verse  8. 

20.  "Being  hnWt'" ^=  i7toi}iodo)Aj]^evrei  :  but  cf.  15  and 
16,  "having  slain,"  etc.,  and  i.  11. 

21.  "Each  several  building"  for  "  all  the  building"  (new 
reading).  What  is  the  probable  sense .'  Christ  is  the  one 
chief  corner-stone  on  which  they  are  all  built,  verse  20. 
Cf.  also  iii.  15.  The  several  parts  of  one  building  or  temple 
are  not  "several  buildings." 


154  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

III. 

15.  "Every  family"  for  "the  whole  family"  =  ;r«a'« 
Ttarpia.  Are  we  to  suppose  there  are  several  families 
{fatherhoods)  in  heaven,  as  there  are  here  upon  earth  ?  One 
can  hardly  help  thinking  that  naffa  Ttarpia  may  here  be 
rendered  after  the  analogy  of  naZ  oiuo?  iGpatjX,  "  all  the 
house  of  Israel ;"  and  that  £v  ovpavoli  uai  ejtl  yt'/i  may  be 
equivalent  lo  a  defining  genitive.      Cf.  i  Pet.  v.  i. 

16.  "  Inward  man"  for  "  inner  man."  (?) 


IV. 

I.  "Calling"  for  "vocation."  "Called"  immediately 
follows.  Cf.  Matt.  xxii.  3, — "to  call  the  bidden"  and  not 
"  to  call  the  called."  The  Revisers  can  sometimes  study 
a  euphonious  variety. 

12.  "For  the"  =  ;rpo?  tor:  "unto  the"^fzS  without 
article  (twice).  Why  not  "  a  work  of  ministering"  and  "  a 
building  up  of  the  body  of  Christ"  ? 

14.  "  By,"  "  in," — both  =  ev  in  coordinate  succession  ; 
"  by  sleight,"  "  in  craftiness," — force  of  idiom. 

16.  "All  the  body"  for  "the  whole  hody"  =  nav  ro 
ff(2)}j.a.  But  see  Gal.  v.  14,  where  we  have  just  the  reverse 
change,  "  the  whole  law"  for  "  all  the  law  ;"  and  Acts  xx. 
27,  "the  whole  counsel"  for  "all  the  counsel;"  and  cf. 
Matt.  viii.  32  ;  Luke  i.  10  ;  Rom.  viii.  22,  and  Mark  xvi.  15. 

18.  "  Being  darkened"  =  f'o';i;orz(7/f6Voz.  They  construe 
with  oVr£b,  it  is  true  ;  but  that  makes  no  difference  ;  it  is 
still  a  perfect  tense.  "  Alienated,"  i.e.,  "  being  alienated  " 
=  aTtjjWoTpicjfxtvoi,  immediately  follows.  Why  not 
"  having  been"  in  both  cases?     Cf.  ii.  8. 

24.  "  Hath  been  created"  for  "  is  created;"  both  are  forms 
for  the  perfect,  but  rov  Kria'^Evra  =  "  which  was  created." 
Cf.  Rom.  vi.  6,  8,  etc. 

32.  "Forgave"  for  "hath  forgiven"  =  fjo'p/o'a'ro.  Cf. 
Phil.  i.  29,  where  they  give  us  "hath  been  granted"  for 
"  is  granted"  =  ixoipiG^t}. 


PHILIPPIANS.  155 

V. 

I.   "  Imitators"  for  "  followers  ;"  "  beloved"  for  "  dear."  (?) 

6.  "Empty"  for ''vain."  (?) 

7.  "  Be"  =  ^/iVeo'J&f  .•    not  "become."     Why? 

10.  "  Well-pleasing"  for  "  acceptable ;"  but  see  Rom.  xii. 
I,  2,  where  they  render  "acceptable." 

12,  20.  Are  the  inversions  here  necessary  ?  Are  they  not 
rather  wanton,  and  much  to  the  damage  of  the  English  ? 
Cf.  2  Peter  iii.  i.  * 

25.  "  For  it"  =  vnlp  avr?)? :  but  cf.  vi.  19,  "on  my  be- 
half" for  "  for  me,"  etc.,  etc. 

26.  "  With  the  word"=  eV  pr/juart. 

32.  "  In  regard  of"  for  "  concerning"  =  €h.  Would  not 
"as  to"  or  "in  relation  to"  have  been  better,  if  we  musf 
have  a  change  ? 

VI. 

9.  "And  forbear"  for  "  forbearing"  :^  arrz^Vrf  5.  But 
see  a  contrary  change  at  v.  26. 

17.  "  The  word  of  God"  =  pijixa  Qsov,  why  not  "  God's 
word,"  or  "  a  word  of  God  ''?     Cf.  Acts  iv.  36,  etc. 

PHILIPPIANS. 


I.  Why  not  say  "  with  bishops  and  deacons  "? — No  article. 

4,  5.  "  On  behalf  of"  for  "  for"  =  VTrep.  Cf.  Eph.  v.  25. 
"  For"  =  fV/ .•  and  "in  furtherance  of '==  el?.  Better  say 
"  for"  for  vTrep,  "upon"  for  €7ri,  and  "as  to"  or  "unto" 
for  fzS  .•    cf.  verse  12  and  Col.  iv.  11. 

22.  "Wot  not"==ou  yv  cop  18,00  :  marg. ,  "do  not  make 
known;"   better  "cannot  tell." — "Je  ne  saurais  dire." 

25.  "Abide,  yea  and  abide"  for  "abide  and  continue" 
=  j^€vc5  Hoci  Ttapajxsvc^.  (?)  They  render  tt  a  pa /^evco  "  con- 
tinue," usually; — see  Heb.  vii.  23;  James  i.  25;  and 
whence  comes  "yea"?  "In  the  faith"  for  "  of  faith"  = 
r?/;  TTityTSGj?. — Render :  "  for  your  progress  and  the  joy  of 
your  faith"? 


156  NOTES  ON   THE   LATE  REVISION. 

29.  "  It  hath  been  granted"  for  "  it  is  given"  =  ixapia^-q. 
Cf.   Eph.  iv.  32  ;  and  see  "  it  is  written." 

II. 

I.  The  interchange  of  ''comfort"  and  "consolation"  is 
consequential ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  and  is  no  improve- 
ment here. 

3.  "  Faction"  for  "  strife"  =  fpzSf/arr  ;  and  so  elsewhere, 
but  is  it  necessary? 

6.  "  Counted  it  not  a  prize  to  be  on  an  equality  with 
God,"  etc.  Suggestion  of  the  American  Revisers  better. 
And  observe  that  aorist  participles  with  aorist  verbs  are 
rendered  present,  just  as  the  present  participle  is. 

9.  "  Wherefore  also  God"  for  "  wherefore  God  also."  Is 
their  "also"  in  its  logical  position  after  all.'  "God  also" 
would  be  according  to  their  usual  rule  in  relation  to  the 
Greek  order.  But  would  it  not  be  better,  if  Ave  must  make 
a  change,  to  retain  the  translation  by  the  perfect,  and  say  : 
"  Wherefore  God  hath  also,"  etc.  ? 

16.  "  In  the  day  of  Christ"  =eU  ijfx.Xft. — "Unto  a  glory- 
ing for  me  at  the  day,"  i.e.  "when  I  come  to  the  day,"  etc. 
"  In  vain"  =fz5  jtevov. 

32.  "  In  furtherance  of"  for  "  in"==£/?  ; — "  unto"  or  "  as 
to"  (the  Gospel). 

24.  "I   myself  also"  for   "  I  also  myself"  ==   Ka\  avr6<^. 

27.  "That  not"  for  "lest"  =iya  )xr) :  cf.  1  Tim.  iii.  7, 
and  Rev.  xvi.  15,  etc. 

29.  "Joy"  for  "gladness,"  and  "honor"  for  "reputa- 
tion."    Such  are  instances  of  excruciating  faithfulness. 

28.  "I  have  sent"  for  "  I  sent," — an  aorist!  This  is  an 
extraordinary  correction  of  an  aorist  tense  ;  and  one  is  curi- 
ous to  know  how  they  reasoned  it  out. 

30.  Here  observe  that  "  service"  towards  the  Apostle  is 
(with  the  A.  V.)  made  the  rendering  of  XsiTovpyicY. 

III. 

T2.  "Have  obtained"  =  f'An'/?ov  .-  and  "am  made  per- 
fect =TeTsX€[Gj/xai.     Cf.  John  xvii. 


PHILIPPIANS.  157 

15.  "  Even  this  shall  God  reveal"  for  "  God  shall  reveal 
even  this"!     Cf.   2  Cor.  v.  20,  etc. 

16.  "  Have  attained," — an  aorist. 

18.  "  Told  often"  for  "have  told  often," — an  aorist. 

19.  "  Earthly  things"  =  rt^  fVzyfzor.     (Article.) 

20.  "  A  Saviour"  for  "the  Saviour"  =  ^car^pa  .•  in  ap- 
position with  Kvpiov=  "  the  Lord"  .'' 

21.  "  Body  of  his  glory"  for  "  his  glorious  body."  But 
this  is  ambiguous  ;  does  it  mean  that  his  glory  has  a  body."* 
In  ordinary  English  we  should  scarcely  use  such  an  expres- 
sion in  any  other  sense. 

IV. 

2.  "  Exhort"  for  "  beseech"  (bis)  =  TtapanaXc^.  So  also 
at  I  Thess.  iv.  10;  i  Tim.  i.  3;  Heb.  xiii.  19,  22  ;  and  "ex- 
hort" for  "  intreat,"  i  Tim.  v.  i;  but  "  intreat"  for  "ex- 
hort," 2  Cor.  ix.  5,  where  "  exhort"  suits  as  well  as  here. 
They  have  also  "exhort"  for  "desire,"  2  Cor.  xii.  18; 
they  retain  "beseech"  at  Matt.  viii.  5,  31,  34;  xiv.  t,6; 
Mark  i.  40;  they  put  "beseech"  where  "exhort"  might 
be  as  well  as  here,  Acts  xxi.  12;  xxvii.  ^^,  34;  Rom.  xii. 
i;  xvi.  17;  Eph.  iv.  I  ;  i  Cor.  i.  10;  xvi.  12,  15  ;  cf.  Heb. 
xiii.  22,  and  i  Peter  ii.  11.  They  put  "intreat"  for  "be- 
seech," Luke  viii.  31,  32 — cf.  Matt.  viii.  31,  34  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  i ; 
X.  I,  and  retain  "intreat,"  Luke  xv.  28.  They  put  "in- 
treat" for  "  desire,"  Acts  ix.  38;  xxviii.  14;  and  "  intreat" 
for  "pray,"  Acts  xxiv.  4.  They  put  "  beseech"  for  "de- 
sire," Acts  viii.  31;  xix.  31;  and  "beseech"  for  "pray," 
Acts  xvi.  9  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  53  ;  Mark  v.  18. — Surely  if  there 
were  "faithful"  reasons  for  all  these  changes  hither  and 
thither,  they  must  be  very  fine-drawn. 

3.  "Beseech"  for  "  entreat"  ==  f/3Cii7rG5.  But  they  have 
"  ask"  for  "  beseech"  at  Luke  vii.  3  ;  viii.  37  ;  John  xix. 
31; — "ask"  for  "desire"  at  Luke  xiv.  32  ;  John  xii.  21; 
Acts  xviii.  20;  xxiii.  20;  and  "desire"  is  retained  at  Luke 
vii.  36; — "ask"  for  -pray"  at  Acts  xxiii.  18,  and  "pray" 
is  retained  at  John  xvii.  9,  15,  20.  At  i  Thess.  iv.  i, 
"  beseech"^  epaoTc^piev,  and  "  exhort"  =  TtapajtaXovixsr. 
This  may  explain  their  renderings  in  these  two   verses   in 


158  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

Philippians,  where  the  same  two  words  are,  not  indeed  in 
juxtaposition,  but  in  near  proximity  to  each  other.  But  that 
could  hardly  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  requiring  a  change 
here,  considering  the  great  variety  of  renderings  they  have 
given  these  words  elsewhere. 

"  For  they"  for  "which"  =airiv£<i.  This  they  elsewhere 
render  "who"  or  "  which,"  and  the  change  is  not  required 
here, — "whose"  (gjk)  immediately  following  involves  the 
same  use  of  the  relative, — while  at  Matt.  vii.  15  such 
a  change  would  have  been  very  much  to  the  purpose.  Cf. 
Col.  ii.  23  and  3  Thess.  i.  9,  etc. 

8.  Where  did  the  Revisers  get  the  marginal  reading  of 
"gracious"  for  svq)7]fxa}  The  whole  question  is,  whether 
we  should  say  "of  good  report"  or  "of  good  import," 
whether  the  word  is  to  be  taken  in  an  active  or  a  passive 
sense. 

10.  "Rejoice"  for  "  rejoiced"  =  fja'pz/r.  ("Gr."  in 
marg. )  But  cf.  Mark  xi.  24  and  xiii.  20.  This  is  another 
remarkable  change  in  the  rendering  of  an  aorist.  In  the 
9th  verse  the  perfects  of  A.  V.  were  better  than  tlieir  pre- 
terites; as  in  the  loth  verse  they  say,  "have  revived"  = 
avs^aXsTe  (better  and  more  faithful  was  the  A.  V.,  "have 
caused  to  flourish  again") ;  and  in  the  nth  and  12th  verses 
they  put  "have  learned"  alike  for  i'jxa^ov  and  for 
)x£fxvy]ixai.     Cf.  John  xvii. 

19.  "  Every  need  of  yours"  for  "all  your  need"  =7td(iav 
Xpsicxv  vjuc^v.     Articular  nicety  ? 

COLOSSIANS. 

I. 

5.  "  In  the  heavens"  for  '*  in  heaven"  =  fV  toi?  ovpavoT?. 
But  see  Matt.  v.  12,  45,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

6.  "For  you"  ==  t^TTtp, — not  "in  your  behalf."  We 
make  this  and  the  like  notes,  because  the  Revisers  so  often 
and  needlessly  substitute  "in  behalf  of"  for  the  simple 
"  for"  of  the  A.  V.,  as  a  translation  of  VTtip. 

12.  "Made"  for  "hath  made;"  also  "delivered"  and 
"translated;"  but  followed  by  "we  have." 


COLOSSIANS.  159 

16,20.  "The  heavens,"  "the  earth,"  for  "heaven," 
"earth."  Cf.  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Mark  ii.  10,  etc.,  etc. 
"Things  visible  and  things  invisible"  ==  ra  opara  uai  rd 
aopara  :  but  what  of  the  article  ?  Cf.  the  faithful  correc- 
tion at  iii.   2, — "  the  things  that  are"   for  "things." 

22.   "  Hath  reconciled," — an  aorist. 

26.  "  Hath  been  manifested," — an  aorist. 

27.  "Was  pleased  to"  for  "  would"  =  T/S^f'AT/a-fr  = 
"willed  to,"  "  it  was  God's  will  to." 

29.  "  Which  worketh' '  =  rrjv  ivepyovfJLSvrjv,  without  any 
marginal  alternate 

II. 

I,  "  Would  have  you  know' '  for  "  would  that  ye  knew  ;" 
but  see  Luke  xix.  14;  i  Tim.  ii.4. 

3.  "  In  whom  are  all  .  .  .  hidden"  for  "  in  whom  are  hid 
all  .  .  .  "  The  A.  V.  is  better  English,  if  the  R.  V.  is 
better  Greek.  Which  do  we  want  ?  The  sense  remains  the 
same. 

4.  "That  no  one"  for  "lest  any  man;"  how  faithful! 
but  see  i  Tim.  iii.  7  ;  Rev.  xvi.  15,  etc. 

5.  "In  the  flesh"  =  r//  Gapui  (as  to  the  flesh). 

7.  "  Builded"  for  "built," — excruciating  faithfulness! 
And  yet  "our  Father  which,"  and  "we  be."  "Your 
faith"  for  "the  faith"  =  tij  niam.  (') 

8.  "  His  philosophy"  =  r7}5' <^zAo(5'o^/<a'?.  (?) 

II.  "Were  circumcised"  for  "  are  (have  been)  circum- 
cised" =  TrfpzfTyU^/S/^rf.  (?) 

12.  "  Were  raised"  for  "are  risen."  Cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  6, 
etc.  "  Raised"  for  "hath  raised  (Christ)"  is  right,  for  this 
is  historical. 

13.  "  Did  quicken"  for  "hath  he  quickened."  (?) 

14.  "  Nailing"  =  Trpotrz/Aajcr or?  .•  but  above  they  have 
translated  aorist  participles  in  connection  with  preterite 
verbs, —  "having  been  buried,"  for  "buried,"  "having  blot- 
ted" for  "'blotting;"  and  below  they  say, — "having  put 
off,"  and  then  "triumphing  over." 

iS.  "  By  a  voluntary  humility"  for  "in,"  etc.  =^i.\ciOv  iv 
raiiBivocppoawq. 


l6o  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

20.  "Died"  for  "be  dead,"— the  aorist.  (?) 
23.  "  But  are  not  of  any  value  against  the  indulgence  of 
the  flesh;" — a  very  doubtful  rendering  of  a  very  difficult 
passage,  and  "indulgence"  (==  TrAz/Cyuor^K)  is  without  arti- 
cle in  the  Greek; — "not  in  any  honour  or  reverence, — to 
an  indulgence  of  the  flesh;"  i.e.,  "not  in  any  reverence 
towards  God, — rather  and  really  to  a  greater  indulgence  of 
the  flesh."     For  construction  see  2  Tim.  ii.  14. 


III. 

1.  "Were  raised"  for  "be  risen"  (so  [3]  "died"  for 
"are  dead");  "is  seated"  for  "  sitteth"  =  fVrzr  .  ,  . 
na'^i]',xEvo<i : — say  "is  sitting,"  if  Ave  fnusf  make  a  change. 

2.  "  The  things  that  are"  for  "things"  (bis)  =  rd.  But 
cf.  i.  20. 

5.  "The  which"  for  "  which"  =  f/rz?;  also  i  Tim.  i.  4. 
But  cf,  ii.  23,  etc. 

7.  "  In  the  which"  (so  A.  V.)  =  ev  oh  :  also  at  verse  15. 

10.  "Is  being  renewed"  =  avcxHaivovpisvor.  (?)  Cf. 
Luke  xxii.  19,  20,  etc.,  etc. 

18.    "Is  fitting"  =  avfjuev. 

22.  "That  not"  for  "lest;"  but  see  again  i  Tim.  iii.  7 
and  Rev.  xvi.  15,  etc. 

IV. 

8.  "  Have  sent," — an  aorist. 

11.  "Workers  unto  the  kingdom  of  God"^f/?.-  not 
"in  furtherance  of."     Cf.  Phil.  i.  4,  5. 

12.  13.   "  For  you"  =vntp  vfxc^v,  not  "  in  your  behalf." 

15.  "The  church  that"  for  "the  church  which"  (is  in 
their  house)  ; — amazing  faithfulness  !  Cf.  i  Cor.  ii.  12, 
"the  Spirit  which";  iii.  10,  "the  grace  which";  iv.  6, 
"the  things  which"  ;  etc.,  etc.     And  see  2  Cor.  i.  4,  note. 

16.  "Hath  been  read"  for  "is  read"  =  avayvoDG^ij  : 
but  see  "  it  is  written." 

17.  "  Hast  received," — an  aorist. 


/.    THESSALONIANS.  l6l 


I.  THESSALONIANS. 


I. 

5.  "How  that"  for  "  for"  =  orz.  (?)  Marg.  "Fulness" 
(for  "assurance")  =  nXijpocpopia  :  but  see  new  reading  at 
Col.  iv.  12,  7r£7tXr]poq)op7])j.i:V 01,  rendered,  without  marginal 
alternate,  "fully  assured,"  instead  of  the  "complete"  of 
the  A.  V.    "  Showed  ourselves"  for  "  were"  =  iy£vy^i]iJ.£v. 

9.  "A  living  and  true  God"  for  "the,"  etc.  Cf.  i  Tim. 
iv.  10 ;  Heb,  xii.  22 ;  Rev.  vii.  2. 


II. 

1.  "Hath  been  found'  f or  "  was"  =  ;/f;/orf k  But  see 
Gal.  iii.  17,  and  see  here  the  development  in  subsequent 
preterites. 

2.  "  Waxed  bold"  for  "  were  bold"  ^  irtapprjGiaaafxs^^a. 
But  see  Acts  xiii.  46,  corrected  just  contrariwise. 

5.   "  Were  found  using"  for  "  used"  =  iysvrf^rifxev. 

13.  "We  also"  for  "also  we"  (thank  God). 

14.  "Which  are  in  Judea  in  Christ  Jesus"  for  "which 
in  Judea  are  in  Christ  Jesus" — oh,  faithfulness  ! 

15.  The  antecedent  of  "  who"  is  doubtful;  in  consistency 
they  should  have  said,  "  for  the  Jews  both  killed,"  etc.  Cf. 
Phil.  iv.  3,  where  their  change  is  not  needed. 

18.  "Once  and  again"  =  ^;rn'^  nai  di?, — "once  and 
twice;"  but  see  "two  witnesses  or  three." 


III. 

5.  "Sent  that  I  might  know"  for  "  sent  to  know"  =  fz^ 
TO  yvc^vai. 

II.  "  May  our  God  direct,"  The  added  "may"  is  not 
needed  ;  see  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  next  verse  (12), 
where  (with  the  A.  V.)  they  say  "  and  the  Lord  make," 
without  any  "  may." 


1 62  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 


IV. 

I,  3,  4.  The  needless  omission  of  7aouM  and  should  vaakes 
the  sense  less  clear. 

9.  "That  one  write  unto  you"  for  "that  I,"  etc.  But 
see  their  translation  at  James  i.  27,  etc.  The  A.  V.  could 
not  use  this  "one"  in  161 1. 

14.  "  That  are  fallen  asleep"  =rov?  KOifAij^tvTa?, — not 
"that  slept."  So  for  the  saints  in  general;  but  "Jesus 
died"  {ani^avE)  is  right,  for  this  is  historical.  Cf.  2  Cor. 
V.  14,  etc. 

V. 

I.  "  Concerning  the  times"  for  "  of;" — faithfulness  ! 

6.  Queer e — whether  "the  others"  would  not  be  better 
than  "the  rest,"  which  they  use  here  and  elsewhere. 

13.  "  Exceeding  highly"  for  "  very  highly"  =  tl^rtp  in- 
TtBpiGGov.     A  very  exceeding  superfluity  of  faithfulness. 

15.  "  Unto  any  one  evil  for  evil"  for  "  evil  for  evil  unto 
any  man"  !     And  the  A.  V.  is  in  the  Greek  order. 

16.  "  Rejoice  alway"  for  "  rejoice  evermore."  Cf.  Phil, 
iv.  4,  and  its  marg.  "  Farewell." 


II.  THESSALONIANS. 

I. 

9.  "Who"  ==orrzvf?.  Why  not  say  "for  they"?  Cf. 
Phil.  iv.  3.  There  is  more  danger  of  misunderstanding 
here  than  there. 

10.  "  To  be  marvelled  at"  for  "to  be  admired"  =  ^ai)pia- 
ffdrjvai.  "  Admired"  is  according  to  the  later  usage  of  the 
Greek;  and  is  it  not  better  here.? 

11.  "Desire  (or  marg.  'good  pleasure')  of  goodness." 
Whose  desire .''     Whose  goodness .'' 

11. 

I.  "  Concerning"  for  "  by"  =  t5;rf/?.  Would  not  "  upon," 
•or  "  by  reason  of,"  or  "  in  view  of"  be  better.' 


/.    TIMOTHY.  163 

2.  "  To  the  end  that"  for  "that"  =  fz?  ro,  etc.  Is  not  this 
illogical  ?  It  answers  to  w/ry  and  not  to  what ;  and  it  would 
remain  to  know  what  he  beseeches  of  them  after  all.  "  Is 
now  present"  for  "is  at  hand"  ==  eVf o'r/^:^^^, — "is  immi- 
nent."    Has  this  word  lately  lost  this  meaning? 

7.  "There  is  one  that  restraineth  now"  =0  narixoov 
apri.  Why  not  say  "  he  that  restraineth  (or  '  the  re- 
strainer')  restraineth  now"  ?    Cf.   6  GTteipcov,  "  the  sower.'' 

10.   "  Are  perishing"  for  "  perish."  (?) 

13.  "  For  that"  for  "  because"  =  orz.  Is  the  sense  any 
clearer  ?     Is  the  English  any  better  ? 

15.  "So  then"  for  "  therefore"  =  apa  ovv.  The  same 
questions  may  be  asked  again. 

16.  "  Loved"  and  "gave"  for  "  hath,"  etc.  (?) 

III. 

1.  "Brethren,  pray"  =  TrpoffSvx^ffOs,  aSeXcpoi.  Why 
did  they  not  follow  the  Greek  order,  and  say  "  pray 
brethren"  ?     Cf.  Gal.  iv.  12  ;  vi.  iS;  Matt,  xxvi.  22,  25. 

2.  "  All  have  not  faith "=ol>  Travrs?,  not  rtavrss  ov.  Why 
not  follow  both  the  Greek  and  good  logic — and  good  Eng- 
lish too — and  say  "  not  all  men  have  (the)  faith"  ?  Cf.  Heb. 
ii.  5  and  i  Cor.  vi.  12. 

I.  TIMOTHY. 

I. 

2.  "  My  true  child  in  faith' '  =  yvrfoicp  rinvoi  iv  niffrei 
=  "a  true  child  in  the  faith;" —  cf.  i  Thess.  i.  9.  There 
is  neither  "  my"  nor  "  the"  with  "  child,"  and  the  Revisers 
are  themselves  accustomed  to  insert  the  article  after  iv. 

3.  "  Exhorted"  for  "besought  "  Why?  See  Phil.  iv.  2. 
(note).  "  Charge"  =  TtapayyiWco.  This  rendering  is  here 
retained  ;  but  "command"  is  put  for  "  charge"  at  v.  7,  and 
is  retained  at  iv.  11 ;  also  at  2  Thess.  iii.  4,  6,  10,  12  ;  Luke 
viii.  29  ;  ix.  21  ;  Acts  xvii.  30  ;  Mark  viii.  6  ; — while 
"charge"  is  put  for  "command"  at  Matt,  x,  5  ;  Mark  vi. 
8 ;  Acts  i.  4;  iv.  18 ;  v.  28,40  ;  x.  42  ;  xv.  5 ;  xvi.  18  ;  xx;ii- 


164  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

30;  I  Cor.  vii.  10  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  11  ;  i  Tim.  i.  5  ;  and  is  re- 
tained at  Luke  viii.  56  ;  v.  14  ;  Acts  xvi.  23  ;  xxiii.  22  ;  i 
Tim.  vi.  13,  17.  This  is  one  of  the  words  which  seems  to 
have  been  a  special  exercise  to  the  Revisers'  faithfulness  ; 
but  the  ground  of  their  distinctions  it  is  hard  to  divine.  Cf. 
e.g.  Mark  vi.  8  with  viii.  6 ;  or  1  Cor.  vii.  10  with  2  Thess. 
iii.  4,  6,  10,  12  and  i  Tim.  iv.  11  ;  v.  7. 

4.  "The  which"  for  "  which"  =  aiVzrf?, — also  Col.  iii. 
5.  But  see  oirivE<i,  2  Thess.  i.  9  ;  Heb.  xiii.  7,  etc.,  where 
they  say  simply  "who"  or  "which." 

5.  "Charge"  for  "commandment"  =  TtapayyeXia?.  (?) 

7.  "Though  they  understand"  for  "understanding." 
The  A.  V.  is  literally  correct.  Cf.  Heb.  vi.  6,  "  if  they  shall 
fall  away"  changed  to  "and  then  fell  away,"  to  render  an 
aorist  participle. 

9.  "As  knowing  this"  for  "knowing  this  =  €iS(^? 
rovTO.  The  "as"  is  not  even  italicized.  "  Law"  for  "the 
law,"  but  what  is  the  difference?  Both  must  here  mean 
law  in  general. 

10.  "Doctrine,"  marg.  "  teaching,"  =  diSaGnakia.  But 
see  iv.  6 — with  no  marg.  reading.  It  is  extremely  difficult 
for  the  uninitiated  to  apprehend  the  nice  distinctions  of 
such  faithfulness. 

17.  "Incorruptible"  for  "immortal"  =  acpOaprcp, — of 
God  ? 

18.  "  By  them"=  fV  afTo-??. 

19.  "  Made"  for  "  have  made."  (?) 

II. 

2.  "Tranquil  and  quiet"  for  "quiet  and  peaceable,"  (?) 
or,  say,  "peaceful"  ? 

4.  "Willeth  that"  for  "will  have  to  ;"  but  see  i  Cor.  ic.  i 
and  Col.  ii.  i  ;  corrected  contrariwise. 

III. 

2.  "  Without  reproach"  for  "  blameless"  =  avSTtiXTjTtrov 
=.  blameless,  or  unblamable,  or  irreproachable,  i.e.  (that 
ought)  not  to  be  attacked  or  blamed.     Cf.  verse  10  and  iv. 


/.    TIMOTHY.  165 

4  ;  and  see,  by  analogy,  Col.  i.  32  and  i  Thess.  iii.  13. 
"The  husband  of  one  wife," — no  article  ;  cf,  verse  12. 

3.  "No  brawler"  for  "not  given  to  wine"  =  napoivov. 
Marg.  of  A.  V., — "  i.e..,  not  ready  to  quarrel  and  offer  wrong 
as  one  in  wine."     The  Revisers  leave  the  wine  out  entirely. 

7.  Lest"  =  iva  jjirf, — not  "that  not,"  and  so  at  Rev.  xvi. 
15.  But  cf.  Col.  iii.  23  ;  ii.  4  ;  Phil.  ii.  27  ;  Heb.  iv.  11, 
etc.,  etc.     See  note  John  xii.  35. 

12.  "Husbands  of  one  wife"  for  "the  husbands,"  etc. 
But  cf.  verse  2.  Whether  the  subject  be  "  deacons"  or  "  the 
deacons"  can  make  no  difference  in  the  predicate. 

15.   "The  church,"  "the  pillar," — no  article  in  Greek. 

IV. 

2.  "  Through"  ^  fV.  Here  their  whole  construction  is 
doubtful  ;  cf.  verses  2  and  3. 

10.  "The  living  God"  =  ani  Qea>  8,(5vti. 

13.  "  To  reading,"  etc. — articles  omitted  thrice  ;  cf.  "  the 
weeping  and  gnashing."  "Teaching"  for  "doctrine"  = 
didacjKaXia.     Do  they  eschew  doctrine  altogether? 

V. 

7.  "Without  reproach,"  again,  for  "blameless."  See 
iii.  2   (note). 

9.  ^^  Having  bee 71 /' why  \t.2i[\c\ZQ6.}  It  is  the  translation 
of  y£yovvTa,  if  that  is  translated  at  all. 

11.  "They  desire  to  marry"  for  "they  will  marr}'"  = 
ya/ASiv S^eXovffiv.  ("They  choose  to  marry"  or  "are  bent 
upon  marrying.") 

VI. 

1.  "The  doctrine"  for  "his  doctrine."  (?) 

2.  "  Partake  of  the  hene^t"  =avTiX(x/x^av6/xsvoi.  Bet- 
ter "  reap  the  benefit,"  i.e.  the  masters  do  ? 

9.  "  Desire  to  be  rich"  for  "will  be  rich;" — i.e.will  to 
be,  or  aim  or  seek  to  be, — lay  their  plans  and  make  their 
efforts  to  be  ; — it  is  more  than  an  idle  "  desire. "  There  is 
no  ambiguity  in  the  A.  V.  according  to  the  laws  of  good 
English.  The  "they  that"  is  here  indefinite,  like  "who- 
ever." 


1 66  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION, 

lo.  "A  root"  for  "  the  root," — predicate;  but  the  Re- 
visers familiarly  render  anarthrous  predicates  with  the  Eng- 
lish article.  See  above  iii.  2,  15  ;  iv.  10  ;  and  John  ix.  5, 
etc.,  etc.  "A  root  of  all  evils"  or  "of  all  the  evils" 
{TtavTGov  Tc5v  xaH(^v,  which  they  render  "all  kinds  of 
evil,"  forgetting  their  faithfulness  with  "all  the  nations") 
either  is  nonsense  or  is  subject  to  much  the  same  difficulty  in 
its  strictly  universal  application  which  was  supposed  to  be 
involved  in  "  the  root  of  all  evil."  Instead  of  being  the  uni- 
versal cause,  it  simply  becomes  a  universal  coti-cause.  But  the 
definite  article  in  English  is  not  absolutely  exclusive,  and 
the  apostle's  words  are  not  to  be  interpreted  with  mathe- 
matical rigor.  The  A.  V.  has  given  the  natural  English 
expression  for  the  apostle's  meaning:  "  The  love  of  money 
is  the  root  of  all  evil," — an  expression  whose  rhetorical 
character  and  simple  sense  are  perfectly  clear  to  every  com- 
mon-sense reader. 

14.  "  Without  reproach,"  again,  for  "  unrebukable. "  See 
iii.  2. 

17.  "  Have  their  hope  set"  =ifk7tinivai.  But  this  is  not 
the  English  perfect ;  that  would  be,  "  have  set  their  hope." 
Did  they  mean  to  throw  a  little  dust  in  our  eyes  ? 

21.  "  Have  erred," — anaorist. 

II.  TIMOTHY. 

I. 

I.  "The  promise  of  the  life  which"  for  "  the  promise  of 
life  which"  ^  inayyEkiav  8,coTii  riji :  they  do  not  say  "  of 
life,  even  the  life  which."     But  cf.  Gal.  ii.  20, 

3.  '*  My"  for  " //y  y"  neither  pronoun  nor  article  in  the 
Greek.  "  Supplications"  for  "  prayers"  =  Ssr/ffeffi : — con- 
sequential. 

5.  "  Having  been  reminded"  for  "when  I  call  to  remem- 
brance" =  vtto/ivt/o'zk  Aa'/?0!?K  =  "while  I  call  (or having 
called)  to  remembrance."  "In  thee  also"  f  or  "  that  in 
thee  also,"  on  not  being  rendered  oratione  redd. 

6.  "For  the  which  cause"  for"  wherefore"  =  cJz  ?;v 
airiav.     Wherefore,  with  "the  which"  and  all  .'^     At  Eph. 


//.    TIMOTHY.  167 

V,  31,  "for  this  cause"  stands  for  ar^ri  tovtov.     At  Tit.  i. 
13,  "  for  which  cause"  =61   rjv  airiav. 

8.  "Suffer  hardship  with  tiie  gospel"  for  "be  partaker 
of  the  afflictions  of  the  Gospel  ;" — is  it  not  rather  "  be  par- 
taker (with  me)  of  afflictions  for  the  Gospel"  ? — the  "with" 
is  not  with  the  gospel  but  with  me  ;  see  ii.  3. 

10.  "  Hath  been  manifested"  for  "  is  made  manifest"  = 
(parepGoS^eiffav.  But  cf.  2  Cor.  v.  11,  where  "we  are  made 
manifest"  renders  the  perfect  of  the  same  verb. 

12.  "Yet"  for  "  nevertheless"  =  aAAo:, — this  is  not  ill, — 
if  some  change  musi  be  made.  But  it  is  strange  they  should 
have  forgotten  their  favorite  '^howbeit;"  which  they  are 
accustomed  to  substitute  for  "but"  in  rendering  aXXa,  as 
at  John  V.  34  ;  viii.  26  ;  xix.  34  ;  Acts  v.  13  ;  i  Cor.  x.  5  ; 
xiv.  19  ;  Phil.  iii.  7  ;  i  Tim.  i.  13. 

II. 

6,   "  The  first"  for  "  first"  =  ;rpc5ror. 

9.  "Malefactor"  for  ^^  evil-doer"  =  xauovpyoS.  Conse- 
quential ;  but  is  it  necessary  ?     Is  it  any  improvement  ? 

10.  Cf.  "the  salvation  which"  with  Gal,  ii.  20. 

11.  "  Faithful  is  the  saying"  for  "  it  is  a  faithful  saying  ;" 
and  so,  often  ;  but  what's  the  faithful  difference  ?  "  Died" 
for  "  be  dead;"  but  note  the  connection  following. 

17.  "Gangrene"  for  "canker."  So,  the  margin  of  tiie 
A.  V. ;  but  qiicere  ? 

18.  "  Men  who"  for  "who"  =  oi'rivs?.  But  see  2  Thess. 
i.  9  ;  Eph.  iv.  19  ;  also  Rom.  iv.  iS;  not  to  say  Matt.  vii.  15. 
*'  Have  erred"  =  ijfftoxy^ffctr. 

19.  '^  Howbeit"  for  "  nevertheless"  ==yU6Vroz.  This  is 
also  the  favorite  translation  for  ttXjjv,  aXXa,  jxcv  ovv, 
etc.,  etc. 

24.  "The  Lord's  servant"  for  "the  servant  of  the  Lord." 
If  they  proposed  to  make  any  difference,  they  should  have 
said  "a  servant  of  the  Lord."  See  Matt.  x.  24,  and  cf. 
Matt.  xvii.  22  ;  xxv.  31  ;  James  i.  20;  Acts  vii.  35;  Rev. 
viii.  4. 

26.   Read — "They    having    been    taken    captive   by   the 


1 68  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

devil,  may  recover  themselves  out  of  his  snare  unto  the  will 
of  God"  ?     Cf.  Tit.  iii.  4;  and  Matt.  xxvi.  24. 

III. 

10.  "Thou  didst  follow"  for  "  hast  fully  knoAvn."  The 
Greek  text  is  changed  for  the  tense;  but  see  the  context  for 
the  sense. 

12.  "Would"  for  "will"  =  oz'(9iAovreJ.  But  cf.  Matt, 
xxiii.  4 — "they  will  not  move  them,"  and  Acts  xxv.  9 — 
"wilt  thou  go  up.-*" 

16.  "  Every  scripture  inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable," 
etc.  =7r^o'a;  ypacpi/  deoTtvsuaro?  nal  Csocptkiixoi,  h.t.X. 
The  marginal  reading,  which  is  substantially  the  same  as 
that  of  the  A.  V.,  is  by  all  means  to  be  preferred  :  for  (i)  the 
natural  use  of  the  7iai,  in  its  ordinary  sense,  is,  to  connect 
OsoTtrevo'ro? a.nd  cocplXipio?,  andthus  they  of  course  fall  into 
the  predicate; — and,  in  any  event,  the  "  is,"  which  remains 
to  be  inserted  somewhere,  may  quite  as  properly  be  inserted 
before  Ihe  "  inspired"  as  after  it.  (2)  Even  if  the  "  inspired 
of  God"  is  put  before  the  "  is,"  it  must  still  have  a  predica- 
tive and  not  an  attributive  character, — not  "every  God- 
inspired  scripture"  (that  would  be  naff  a  dsoTtvevffTO? 
ypaqjr/),  nor  "  every  scripture  ivhich  is  inspired  of  God" 
(that  would  require  1)  deonvsvffTO?),  but  '■  every  scripture 
being  inspired  of  God"  (as  it  is);  cf.  Ileb.  v.  i,  "Every 
high  priest  being  taken  from  among  men"  (as  he  is), — not 
"which  is  taken,"  etc.;  so  also  Heb.  iv.  2,  "because  they 
were  not  united," — not  "them  which  were  not  united." 
And  thus  the  sense  (though  not  clearly  expressed  in  the 
Revisers'  text)  will  remain  substantially  the  same  after  all 
their  unnatural  change  of  construction. 

It  is  noticeable  tluit  they  render  nai  cocptXi/.io?  "also 
profitable"  and  not  "profitable  also."  But  see  their  pains- 
taking corrections  in  the  construction  of  "also,"^.^.  at  i 
Tliess.  ii.  13,  "we  also"  for  "also  we"  =  mxi  y/xsTi. — cf. 
Heb.  iv.  12,  13,  where  they  do  not  say:  "The  word  of  God 
living  is  also  active,"  and  "all  things  naked  are  also  laid 
open."    Why  then  adopt  this  strange  construction  just  here  ? 


TITUS.  169" 

IV. 

6.  "Am  already  being  offered"  =  ^7(^7  GTclvdojxai.  Is 
this  better  English  than  to  say  "  I  am  now  offered"  ? — if  in- 
deed tiie  A,  V.  need  be  changed  at  all.  "  Is  come"  for  "  is 
at  hand"  ==  £<7>£a'r;7Kf.  (?) 

10.  Preterites  for  perfects  ;  but  with  Crescens  and  Titus 
are  not  perfects  much  more  naturally  to  be  understood  ? 

TITUS. 
I. 

1-4.  The  rendering  of  articles  here  is  worthy  of  examina- 
tion. Why  is  it  "the  truth  which,"  and  then  "  eternal  life, 
which,"  and  then  "  the  message  which,"  and  then  "  my  true 
son,"  and  then  "a  common  faith"  .^  "When"  for  "after 
that"  =  or£  :  cf.  i  Cor.  xiii.  11. 

6.  "That  believe"  for  "  faithful"  =  ttzo-t^.  (?) 

7.  "God's  steward"  for  "the  steward  of  God."  But 
what  is  the  difference?  Is  this  rendering  given  in  such 
cases  because  the  Greek  is  without  the  article  ?  But  if  the 
A.  V.  expressed  the  exact  sense,  did  faithfulness  require  a 
change  of  the  form  ? 

8.  "A  lover  of  good."  Good  what  ?  They  might  have 
said  "  of  that  which  is  good"  (or  "  of  good  things' ')  or  "  of 
good  men  ;"  but  must  it  not  be  one  or  the  other? 

11.  "Men  who"  for  "  who"  =  of'rzrf?.  See  2  Tim.  ii,  18 
(note). 

13.  "  For  which  cause"  for  "  wherefore"  =  ^z  r/v  airiav. 
At  2  Tim.  i.  6,  they  say  "  for  the  which  cause"  for  the  same 
Greek.  What  becomes  then  of  their  boasted  and  pains- 
taking uniformity  of  rendering,  as  with  "  straightway,"  for 
example  ?  And  wherefore  make  any  change  either  there  or 
here,  the  sense  remaining  the  same  ? 

15.    "  Are  defiled"  =ju€/xiavTai  (perfect). 

II. 

3.  "  Enslaved"  =  ^f(5^ofA(i7//fVa'5  =  "  having  been  en- 
slaved."    Cf  Matt.  V,  10. 


170  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

5.  '■'■  To  be  .  .  .  being  in  subjection  to"  for  ^^  to  be  .  .  , 
obedient  to"=  VTtoTaffffo/xivai.  (?)     And  so  at  verse  9. 

7.  "  Ensample"  for  "  pattern"  =  r^TroK.  (?) 

11.  "  Hath  appeared" — an  aorist.  . 

III. 

3.   "Aforetime"  for  "  sometimes"  =7r  ore  =  once. 

5.  "  Done"  =Tcov==''  which  were." 

6.  "Poured  out  upon"  for  "shed  on"  =  e^ex^^'^-  But 
see  Acts  ii.  1 7,  18  and  ^^f  etc. ,  where  the  Revisers  insist  upon 
"poured  forth,"  and  (17,  18)  correct  the  "poured  out  "  of 
the  A.  V. 

9.  "Strifes"  for  "contentions"  =ipsi?.  But  at  i  Cor.  i. 
II,  they  have  left  "contentions;"  is  the  sense  different 
there  for  the  case-increment?  "Fightings"  for  "striv- 
ings" (about  the  law)  =  /^ctja-;  vo}xiKoci  (legal  battles). 

15.    "In  faith"  for  "  in  the  faith"  =  iv  niarei.  (?) 

PHILEMON. 

8.  "Have  all  boldness"  for  "  might  be  much  bold"  = 
7to\Xi]v  nappt^aiav  i'xoov.  (?) 

12.  "  Have  sent  back" — an  aorist. 

13.  "  In  thy  behalf"  for  "  instead  of  thee"  =  vnip.  Sup- 
pose we  give  the  simple  and  true  rendering, "  for, "  and 
then  let  common-sense  decide  which  is  tlie  right  meaning  in 
this  connection  ? 

19.  "  Write"  for  "have  written" — an  aorist.  "That  I 
say  not' '  for  "  albeit  I  say  not"  :=  iva  )ai)  Xiyoo^  "  not  to 
say"  (see  2  Cor.  xii.  7  ;  Phil.  ii.  30  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  9,  etc.), 
and  proceed  with  "that"  instead  of  "  how  that"  ^oti. 

21.  "Beyond"  for  "more  than"  =  L'rrf'p  .•  but  at  verse 
16,  "more  than"  for  "above,"  with  the  same  case  and 
VTtip. 

HEBREWS. 
I. 

I.  The  many  and  divers  changes  in  this  verse  are  well 
enough   in   themselves ;  but   are  they  necessary  ?   For  the 


HEBREWS.  171 

translation  of  the  aorist  participle,  cf.  i   Cor.  viii.  5  ;  John 
iv.  39  and  v.  44,   note. 

2.  "  In  his  son,"  marg.  "  a  son."  What  occasion  for  this 
marginal  reading  ?  After  iv  the  Revisers  are  accustomed 
freely  to  insert  the  article  ;  it  is,  or  may  be,  therefore,  "  the 
son"  or  "his  son." 

3.  "  Effulgence"  for  "  brightness."  (?)  "  Substance"  for 
"person."  (?)  "Sins"  ==  tcjk  a^apri^v  :  but  does  not 
this  mean  "  our  sins,"  even  without  the  -t]jj.^v  ?  Think  of 
"  the  weeping  and  gnashing";  and  cf.  "its  sanctuary"  at 
ix.  I,  "their  deliverance"  at  xi.  35,  and  "their  faith"  at 
xi.  40. 

7.  "  Who  maketh  his  angels  winds"  =  ;n^fi;/^arrar.  This 
might  be  well  enough  in  itself,  but  is  it  quite  consistent? 
At  verse  13,  of  the  angels  they  say :  "  Are  they  not  all  min- 
istering spirits" — not  "  winds"  =  7rr£i;yuafra'.  As  to  the 
suggestion  that  "winds"  and  "flame  of  fire"  are  here  for 
the  Hebrew  accusative  of  material,  that  is  not  likely — (i) 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  which  is  not  one  of  moulding 
or  fashioning  ;  (2)  from  the  fact  that  the  Psalmist  had  just 
said,  "who  maketh  the  clouds  his  chariot,"  in  a  different 
order;  and  (3)  from  the  fact  that  the  Septuagint,  in  almost 
all  cases,  translate  the  Hebrew  accusative  of  material  with 
in.  And  that  "angels"  and  "ministers"  must  be  accusa- 
tive subjects  and  not  predicates  appears  from  this,  that  it  is, 
with  ministers,  "  a  flame  pf  fire"  or  "a  flaming  fire,"  and 
not  "  flames  of  fire"  ;  it  could  not  be  said,  "  he  maketh  a 
flame  of  fire  his  ministers." 

14.  "  To  do  service"  for  "  to  minister"=6z?  dzo'Kor/o'r. 
This  is  generally  rendered  by  the  Revisers  "ministry;"  see 
3  Tim.  iv.  II,  "for  ministering"  =fzs  dianoviav.  They 
should  rather  have  changed  the  rendering  of  XsirovpyiKu 
— (if  they  ftmst  change  something) :  say,  e.g.,  "  Spirits  that 
do  service,  sent  foi-th  to  minister,"  etc.  ? 

II. 

1.  "  Things  that  were  heard" — (not  "  have  been")  =  roz? 
aKovadeidi.     Cf.  Rom.  vi.  7. 

2.  "  Proved"  for  "  was"=  ^yeVfro.   (.') 


172  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

5.  "  Not  unto  angels  did  he"  for  "  unto  the  angels  hath 
he  not."  Why  not,  then,  following  the  Greek,  say,  at  2 
Thess.  iii.  2,  "  Not  all  men  have  faith"  ?  That  would  have 
been  logically  correct ;  while  here  the  order  makes  no  differ- 
ence in  the  logic  or  in  the  sense.  As  for  the  article  and  the 
tense — queer  el 

9.  "Behold"  for  "  see"=  /JAfTro/^f  r ;  but  they  render 
this  verb  by  "see,"  ten  to  one. 

16.  "  For  verily  not  of  angels  doth  he  take  hold,  but  he 
takethhold  of  the  seed  of  Abraham."  After  all,  this  must  re- 
fer to  the  Incarnaiioji  ,•  otherwise,  why  say  "  seed  of  Abraham," 
and  not  "  seed  of  Adam,"  or  "  mankind"  ?  If  aiding  or  help- 
ing is  what  is  meant  by  inikajifiavExai^  surely  the  help^  the 
benefits  of  the  salvation  are  for  all  men,  and  not  for  tlie  "  seed 
of  Abraham"  only  ;  see  verse  9.  He  taketh  hold  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham — he  taketh  to  himself  the  seed  of  Abraham — the 
seed  of  David — that  he  might  help,  might  save,  mankind.  For 
BTtikajxfiecvojxai^  cf.  Matt.  xiv.  31  ;  Luke  ix.  47  ;  xxiii.  26  ; 
Acts  xvi.  19;  xvii.  19;  xviii.  17;  xxi.  30,  33  ;  and  particu- 
larly, I  Tim.  vi.  12,  19; — to  lay  hold  on,  to  take  to  one's 
self,  to  take  as  one's  own. 


III. 

5.  '* Afterward  to  be  spoken"  for  "to  be  spoken  after  ;" 
but  see  iv.  S,  "have  spoken  afterward"  is  put  for  "after- 
ward have  spoken."  What  is  the  key  ?  Why  either 
change }  Why  both  ?  Under  such  criticism  the  A.  V.  is  in 
hard  case. 

IV. 

I.  "Let  us  fear  therefore"  for  "  let  us  therefore  fear." 
How  consistent!     Cf.  Acts  xxv.  17  ;  2  Cor.  v.  20,  etc.  etc. 

3.  "Have  believed"  =  niaTBvGavr^i :  "  that"  =  r//r  .• 
cf.  verse  11,  "  that"  =  eHeivTjv  rr'jv,  and  verse  4,  "the"  for 
"this." 

6.  "  That  some  should  enter  thereinto"  =  riva?  siasWeTv 
sis  avT7}v, — not,  "  that  some  enter."  "  Failed  to  enter  in" 
for  "  entered  not  in"  =  ovu  eiaijXOov.    Which  is  the  true 


HEBREWS.  173 

rendering  ?      The   most  faithful    translation    need   not   be 
clearer  than  the  original. 

10.  "Is  entered,"  "hath  rested" — aorists. 

11.  "That  no  man  fall"  for  "  lest  any  man  fall."  The 
difference?  But  see  John  v.  14;  xii.  40;  i  Tim.  iii.  7; 
Matt.  xvii.  27;  xxvi.  5;  Rev.  xvi.  15,  etc. 

12.  "Active"  for  "  powerful"  ^  eVfp;/?;?.  (?)  "The 
dividing"  =  jxe pw jxov , — no  article. 

13.  "  Before  the"  for  "  unto  the"  =  Tois. 

15.   "  But  one"  for  "  but ;" — no  "  one"  in  text. 


5.  "This  day"  for  "to-day"  =<jrjfxspor,  and  so  at  Acts 
xiii.  33 ;  but  see  iv.  7,  8,  and  Luke  xxiii.  43. 

6.  "  For  ever"  =  fzV  rov  aicava  : — no  marg. 

7.  "  For  his  godly  fear"  ==  ano  rrjZ  svXafieia? :  A.  V. 
jnarg.,  "  For  his  piety."     But  quaeref 

12.  "  For"  = ;««/  yap:  but  at  iv.  2,  "for  indeed"  for 
"  for"  ^  the  same  Greek. 

14.  "But  solid  food  is  for  full  grown  men"  =r£Af/G!?K 
6e  EGTiv  7)  areped  rpo^//="  but  for  full  grown  men  is 
the  solid  food."  Where  was  their  faithfulness  to  Greek 
order  and  emphasis  and  article?  "  The  weeping  and  gnash- 
ing." 

VI. 

I .  "  Wherefore' '  for  "  therefore"  =  dio.  But  is  this  better 
English  at  the  beginning  of  a  paragraph  ? — "  for  which"  in- 
stead of  "  for  this"  ?  And  see  2  Cor,  iv.  13.  "  Let  us  cease 
to  speak  of  the  first  principles  of  Christ"  for  "  leaving  the 
principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ"  =  (xq)avrEi  rov  rz/S 
apxfj^  rov  XpiGtov  Xoyov.  The  A.  V.  has  the  advantage 
of  the  literal  participial  construction,  and  there  is  no  more 
in  the  Greek  about  "  speak"  than  about  "  doctrine."  After 
all,  have  they  made  the  sense  any  clearer  ? 

4-6.  Are  the  changes  here  necessary?  Are  they  au- 
thorized ?  It  is  not  likely  that  actual  historical  cases  are 
here  described;  and  the  Revisers  have  no  more  right  to 
insert  "  then"  before  tJaQ  falling  away  th.a.n  the  A.  V.  had  to 


174  NOTES   ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

insert  "  if,"— and  cf.  their  own  construction  at  vii.  5  and 
I  Cor.  viii.  10  ;  xi.  29.  The  present  tenses  in  verse  6  indi- 
cate that  probably  the  preceding  aorists  are  conceived  of  as 
perfects.  And  immediately  after,  at  verse  7,  they  render 
7/  niovaa  "that  hath  drunk," — not  "  that  drank."  (!) 

10.  "Not  unrighteous  to  forget;"  cf.  Acts  xv.  10. 
"Showed"  and  "ministered"  for  "have,"  etc.;  followed 
by  the  present  "  still  do," — was  there  an  interval! 

11.  "May  show"  for  "do  show," — infinitive  with  ac- 
cusative.    Better,  simply  "  show." 

12.  "Imitators"  for  "followers."  So,  constantly;  but 
which  is  the  more  current  English  ? 

13.  "  Since"  for  "  because"  =S7tei.     Consequential. 

15.  "  And  thus"  for  "  and  so  "  =  xai  ovroo.  How  faith- 
ful!     "  Having"  for  "  after  he  had,"  and  what  of  it  ? 

16.  "  And  in  every  dispute  of  theirs,  the  oath  is  final  for 
confirmation,"  for  "  and  an  oath  for  confirmation  is  to  them 
an  end  of  all  strife"  =  Gr.,  "And  of  all  controversy  to 
them  the  oath  is  an  end  for  confirmation."  The  A.  V.  is 
quite  as  near  the  Greek  as  is  the  Revision. 

18.  "Lay  hold  of"  for  "  lay  hold  upon."  (?) 

19.  "Which  we  have  as  .  .  .  Zi  hope  both  sure,"  etc., 
for  "which  hope  we  have  as  .  .  .  both  sure,"  etc.  Is 
the  revised  sense  quite  certain  ? 

VII. 

6.  "  That  hath"  for  "  that  had"  =  rov  i'xovra,  governed 
by  a  verb  in  the  perfect.  It  means  simply  "the  possessor," 
and  so,  here,  "that  had,"  if  we  would  have  natural 
English.     Cf.  xiii.  7  ;  Rev.  iv.  9,  10  and  v.  i  ;  also  xi.  28. 

7.  "Dispute"  for  "contradiction  "=  «j^TzAo;j//«'. 

II.  "Now  if"  for  "  if  therefore"^  f  7 //ty  ovv.  Soalsoat 
viii.  ^.  "  Arise"  for  "  rise"=  a'v/(5'ra'(rO«z.  "  Be  reckoned" 
for  "be  called"  =  A^yfO'^o'z,  cf.  ix.  2. 

16.  Note:  "  Indissoluble  (tt^aTn-Avrof)  life"  is  proved 
by  "  priest  forever"  (f/?  rov  ai(^va)\  therefore  the  last 
phrase  means  "everlastingly,"  "without  end." 

18.  "There  is  a  disannulling"  (so  also  A.  V.)— not  "is 


IIEBRE  WS.  175 

made"  =yiv€Tat.  "  Of  a  foregoing"  for  "  of  the,"  etc.  ; — 
but  a  definite  commandment  is  intended. 

20.  "  The  taking  of  an  oatli"  for  "  an  oath"  =opKoofxo- 
Gia? : — no  article  ;  and  the  very  same  word  is  immediately 
rendered  "oath"  simply,  as  in  the  A.  V.,  and  as  also  at 
verse  28. 

21,23.  "Have  been  m3.de"  =£iffiv  yeyovors'S  =^' have 
become,"  or  "are  (priests)  having  become  (such)."  22. 
*'  Hath  become"  for  "  was  made"  =  ylyov£v.  Cf.  xi.  28  ; 
Gal.  iii.  17;  2  Cor.  ii.  13;  John  vi.  25,  etc. 

25.  "Draw  near  unto  God"  for  "come  to  God "  == 
TtpoGBpxojxLvovi  rcS)  06c5  .•  see  note  at  x.  i ;  and  cf.  xi. 
6,  etc. 

26.  "  Made= /fro//£ro?, — not  "become." 

27.  "  Like"  for  "  as"  =  c3(5'7rfp. 

28.  "  Perfected"  for  "consecrated."  (?)  So  the  A.  V.  in 
margin. 

VIII. 

5.  "Who,"  not  "  the  which"=  ofrz^'f;  .•"  is  warned  when 
he  is  about  to"  =  K&xpi-jjxariGrai  jxtWoDV  =  '-'-'\\2lS  been 
warned  when  about  to." 

IX. 

1.  "Now  even"  for  "then  verily  .  .  .  also"=//ir  ovv 
nai.  It  is  nothing  strange  that  the  first  covenant,  because  it 
was  first,  should  have  ordinances  of  divine  service  ;  and  so 
the"  even"  would  seem  out  of  place.  Note  the  revised  ren- 
dering of  -core  ayiov  Koa^iinov  : — "its  sanctuary,  a  .r^;?r- 
iiia7j  of  this  world"  for  "a  worldly  sanctuary."  What  a 
contortion  in  order  to  avoid  putting  "a"  for  ro, — and  yet 
putting  it  after  all ! 

2.  "The  Holy  place"  =  a^/zo' .•  no  "the,"  no  "place," — 
literally,  "  is  called  (not  "is  reckoned")  holy."  And  so 
below  "  Holy  of  holies,"  no  "  the." 

4.    "  Having"  for  "which  had."  (?) 

II.  "Having  come"  for  "being  como"  =  7r  a  pay  svojxs- 
ro?.  How  could  this  be  required  by  faithfulness  ?  "  Being 
come''  may  be  archaic,  but  is  it  unintelligible?    The  Revi- 


176  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE   REVISION. 

sers  retain  and  multiply  archaisms  ("howbeit,"  etc.). 
They  even  retain  the  be  for  Jiave  in  unnumbered  cases  as  the 
auxiliary  of  come^  go,  etc.  ;  and  so,  if  that  is  unintelligible 
they  are  unfaithful,  and  if  it  is  intelligible  they  are  incon- 
sistent ("  straightway,"  etc.). 

15.  "A  death"  for  "  death.''  His  death  is  evidently  im- 
plied in  the  connection.     Cf.  verse  i. 

16.  "  The  death,"  subject  of  qjtpsadai, — no  article.  And 
"  death,"  not  "a  death,"  at  verse  17.  zdz«0/;K7  is  translated 
"covenant"  from  viii.  6,  to  this  verse;  and  here,  where  evi- 
dently the  same  thing  is  meant,  it  is  translated  "  testament  ;" 
and,  again,  thenceforward  it  is  rendered  "covenant."  In 
the  A,  V.  it  is  "  testament"  from  verse  15  through  the  chap- 
ter. 

17.  ''Where  there  hath  been  death,"  {marg.  "over  the 
dead,")  for  "  after  men  are  dead"=  ivtl  veupoii.  Certainly 
the  word  is  "dead"  and  not  "  death." 

X. 

I.  "Them  that  draw  nigh"  for  "  the  comers  thereunto" 
==  roui  npoffepxofxlvovi.  The  Revisers  have  rendered  this 
verb,  with  the  A.  V.,  68  times  by  "  come,"  "  come  to,"  "  come 
unto,"  and  at  Matt,  xxvii.  58  ;  Luke  xxiii.  52  ;  Acts  ix.  i  ; 
xxii.  26,  by  "went  to."  They  agree  with  the  A.  V.  in  the 
Gospels  tiiroughout,  except  at  Luke  vii.  14,  where  they  say 
"  came  nigh."  They  agree  with  the  A.  V.  in  rendering  it 
"  draw  near"  at  Acts  vii.  31  ;  Heb.  x.  32  ;  "  go  near"  at  Acts 
viii.  39  ;  and  "consent"  at  i  Tim.  vi.  3.  They  put  "draw 
near"  for  "come  to"  at  Heb.  iv.  16  and  vii.  35,  and  here  at 
X.  I,  they  say  "draw  nigh"  (for  a  little  varietv .'' — see 
"straightway").  At  Heb.  xi.  6,  where  they  (with  the  A.  V.) 
translate  it  by  "  come,"  it  is  coming  to  God;  and  so,  at  xii. 
18,  22,  "  coming  to  a  mount,"  "  to  Mount  Zion  ;"  and  at  i 
Pet.  ii.  4,  "coming  to  the  Lord." 

8,  1 1.  "  The  which"  for  "  which"  =  aitivsi.  Cf.  viii.  5  ; 
xiii.  7  ;  2  Thess.  i.  9. 

10.   "  Which"  for  "the  which"  ^  c5.     Oh  !  how  faithful  ! 

II.  "Day  by  day"  for  "daily."  (?) 

13.  "  Footstool  of  his  feet" — once  more. 


HEBREWS.  177 

16,  '■'Thensaithhe'  is  an  entirely  unnecessary  insertion. 
We  need  only  put  the  semicolon  after  "  malce  with  them  ;" 
and  a  comma  after  "  saith  the  Lord,"  and  the  whole  becomes 
consecutive  and  clear.  See  the  punctuation  of  the  A.  V. 
in  the  original  prophecy  at  Jeremiah  xxxi.  33. 

19.  "Holy  place"  for  "Holiest"  =  r&tv  dyioov.  Also 
ix.  8.  (?). 

20.  If  "way"  is  repeated,  the  last  ought  to  be  in /Ai://Vj-. 
Note  their  servile  construction.     Cf.  3  Pet.  iii.  i. 

23.  "That  it  waver  not"  for  "without  wavering"  = 
aHXiVTJ.     Is  all  that  verbal  construction  in  an  adjective? 

25.  Day  "drawing  nigh"  for  "  approaching"  =^  f)/^/- 
^ovffav.     Required  by  faithfulness  ! 

28.  "A  man  that  hath  set  at  naught"  for  "he  that  de- 
spised^' =  aOeri/ffai  rii.  This  is  a  remarkable  case,  where 
the  Revisers  put  a  perfect  for  the  preterite  of  the  A.  V.  in 
rendering  an  aorist.  And  it  is  further  remarkable  that  just 
here  they  are  wrong,  and  the  A.^V.  is  probably  right  ;  that 
is  to  say,  the  tense  should  be  either  preterite  or  pluperfect, 
— in  no  event  perfect ; — "  one  (or  he)  that  set  (or  had  set)  at 
nought,"  or  "treated  (or  had  treated)  with  contempt,  .  .  . 
died  without  mercy,"  etc. 

29.  "Judged"  for  "  thought"  worthy  =  aBiooSr'jGSTai.  (.') 

30.  "Said"  for  "hath  said,"  aorist.  (.') 

32.  "After  ye  were  enlightened"  for  "after  ye  were  il- 
luminated" =  qjooriffdtivrei.  Here  they  retain  "after,"  but 
cf.  verses  12  and  36,  etc. 

37.  "  He  that  cometh  shall  come"  for  "  he  that  shall  come 
will  come"  =0  epxo/xsvo^  rjSei.  Cf.  Luke,  xviii.  30,  "  He 
that  is  to  come." 

38.  The  text  in  the  first  clause  is  changed,  by  adding  /a oO 
aiter  SiKaio?,  (righteous  one).  The  "  and"  which  begins  the 
second  clause  does  not  belong  to  the  quotation,  not  being 
in  the  prophet;  see  Septuagint ;  and  cf.  Luke  iv.  11,  and 
above  at  i.  10,  "  and.  Thou  Lord." — The  same  mode  of  print- 
ing should  have  been  adopted  here.  The  "  and"  connects 
two  separate  quotations  ;  and  it  is  remarkable  that,  in  the 
prophet,  that  which  is  here  the  second  comes  first  ;  so  that 
the  "he"  (or  the  subject  of  "shrink  back")  cannot  there 


178  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  J^E VISION. 

refer  to  "  tlit  righteous  one,"  who  is  not  mentioned  till 
afterward.  The  Revisers  have  treated  the  passage  as  a  cita- 
tion,— and  rightly  ;  for,  if  the  apostle  had  constructed  his 
sentence  without  reference  to  the  prophet,  he  would  natural- 
ly have  connected  the  two  clauses  with  da  and  not  with 
nai, — with  "but"  (as  the  A.  V.)  and  not  with  "and."  As 
to  the  insertion  of  "any  man"  by  the  A.  V.,  see  John  viii. 
44  marg.  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  13  and  i  Pet.  iv.  16,  etc 

-»  XI. 

I.  The  margin  or  the  A.  V.  is  to  be  preferred  for  vnoff- 
ra(yi<^,  "  substance;"  the  text  or  A.  V.  for  i'XeyxoZ,  "evi- 
dence" or  "proving." 

5.  "Translated"  for  "had  translated,"  after  (5'zorz  .•  but 
cf.  Phil.  ii.  26  and  i  Thess.  ii.  8. 

6.  "  Is  a  rewarder,"— not  "becomes"  =  yiverai. 

9.  "  Became  a  sojourner  ...  in  a  land  not  his  own"  for 
"sojourned  ...  in  a  str^n^Q  conntry"  =  napcpjajffev  eii 
yrfv  .  .  .  aWorpiav.  But  see  their  own  translation  at 
Acts  vii.  6,  "  that  his  seed  should  sojourn  in  a  strange  land" 
=  on  eGTai  to  Grtepfxa  avTov  Ttapoiicov  sv  jnj  aA- 
Xorpia.  Above  they  put  "  became  a  sojourner"  f(;r  one 
aorist  verb,  Ttapwur^ff sv  =^^  so]o\\med,"  and  in  Acts  they 
put  "sojourn"  alone  for  iffrai  napoinov^  which  might 
fairly  be  rendered  "should  be  (or  become)  sojourners,"  — 
plural,  for  they  immediately  say  "them"  for  "seed."  And 
as  to  their  strange  rendering  of  aWor piav  here,  cf.  also 
Matt.  xvii.  25  and  John  x.  5  ("strangers")  ;  Luke  xvi.  12  ; 
Rom.  xiv.  4;  XV.  20;  2  Cor.  x.  15,  16  ;  i  Tim.  v.  22,  ("an- 
other's," "another  man's,"  "other  men's")  ;  and  verse  34 
("  aliens"). 

II.  "  Even  Sarah  herself"  for  "  also  Sarah  herself."  (Cf. 
"also"  for  "even,"  verse  12.)  Who  should  have  received 
■the  power  rather  than  Sarah  herself  ?  Say  rather  "  by  faith, 
also,  Sarah  herself  ( =  Ttiffrei  xal  aim)  2appa)  received 
power  to  conceive  seed,  even  when  she  was  past  age"  (xai 
Ttapa  naipov  yXiniai).  This  "even"  {Kai)  they  omit  en- 
tirely. Extraordinary  faithfulness  !  The  logic  of  the  case 
must  prevail  over  the  order  of  the  first  ncxi. 


HEBREWS.  179 

12.  "Wherefore"  for  "  therefore"  =  ^zo  .•  see  vi.  i  and 
cf.  2  Cor.  iv.  13.  "Also  ...  of  one'  for  "even  of  one," 
cf.  verse  1 1.  Literally,  "  wherefore  even  of  one  sprang  there 
— and  him  already  dead  (as  it  were) — so  many,"  etc.  Their 
"  also"  is,  by  their  own  apparent  rule,  connected  solely  with 
"  wherefore,"  implying  an  added  "  wherefore,"  or  an  added 
inference,  and  implying  moreover,  according  to  their  appar- 
ent Greek  rule,  that  the  nai  stood  before  the  dio. 

16.  "  Hath  prepared" — an  aorist. 

17.  In  the  text,  a  perfect  is  designedly  and  deliberately 
rendered  in  the  preterite, — see  margin; — "offered  up  "== 
Ttpoaevijvoxsy  :  and  then  an  imperfect  is  carefully  rendered 
"was  offering  up."  Literally,  "and  his  only  begotten 
was  he  offering  up  who  had  (gladly)  received  the  promises, 
to  whom  it  was  (or  had  been)  said,"  etc.  And  thus  their 
crabbed  and  intercalated  construction  might  be  quite 
avoided.  They  say  "that  had  received"  =  6  avaSs^d/us- 
ro?,  not,  "that  received"  ;  but  cf.  Matt.  xxv.  18,  20,  22. 
For  Ttpo?  ov  the  A.  V.  "of  whom"  (or  "in  reference  to 
whom")  is  better.  Their  margin,  which  is  the  same  as  the 
A.  v.,  would  require  the  "he"  of  their  text  to  be  changed 
to  "him"  before  the  "of"  of  their  margin. 

19.  The  A,  V.  is  better,  with  "him"  inserted.  What 
immediately  follows  implies  it.  "  Parable"  here  is  not 
English. 

21.  "  When  he  was  a  dying"  retained  ==  aTroBrr/ffUGDr, 

22.  "  When  his  end  was  nigh"  =  rsXevrc^v. 

28.  "Kept"  =  TtSTioirfJiS,  —  perfect.  "That  not"  for 
I  "lest."  Wanton  faithfulness.  Cf  John  xii.  40;  i  Tim. 
•  iii.  7  ;  Rev.  xvi.  15  ;  Matt.  xvii.  27  ;  xxvi.  5,  etc.  "  The  de- 
stroyer of"  for  "  he  that  destroyed"  =  6  oXoOpavcov.  Cf. 
xiii.  7  ;  Rev.  iv.  9,  10. 

30.  "After  they  had  been  compassed  about"  for  "after 
they  were,"  etc.=  KvuXaodevTa  =  "  having  been  compassed 
about,"  cf.  next  verse. 

32.  What  shall  I  more  say?  =  ri  sti  Xiyao ^  retained. 
"  If  I  tell"  =  6 it]y ov fxsr ov  :  see  vi.  6. 

35.  "Their  deliverance;"  mai-g.  "  Gr.  the  redemption." 
Say  "  the /r^(?r^^  deliverance," — if  we  7jmst  have  "  the." 


i8o  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

40.  "Through  their  faith"  for  "through  faith"  =  c5'z« 
ri}i  TtiGrBoo'i.  But  1)  Ttiarii  they  freely  render  simply 
"  faith,"  see  James  ii.  17,  22  ;  Rom.  iii.  25,  30,  31  ;  Gal.  iii. 
23,  etc. 

XII. 

4,  5.  "  Have  resisted"  ^  avTuiaTlarijTS  .•  "  have  forgot- 
ten" =  hiXeXyjads, — aorist  and  perfect  co-ordinated.  See 
also  Acts  XXV.  10;  Phil.  iii.  13  ;  iv.  11  ;  Mark  v.  19,  etc. 
Cf.  John  xvii. 

9.  "  Had"  for  "  have  had"  =£/jo/^£K, — "used  to  have." 
"  Have  had"  is  as  good  an  expression  for  it  as  we  can  com- 
mand in  English. 

II.  "  Peaceable  fruit  .  .  .  even  the  fruit  oi  righteous- 
ness" for  "the  peaceable  fruit  of  righteousness."  Another 
wrestling  with  the  article.  See  also  ix.  i  ;  xiii.  20,  and  Gal. 
ii.  16,  20.     Cf.  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  ad  Jin. 

13.  "That  not"  for  "  lest"  ^  zVrt' ////.  But  cf.  John  xii. 
40;  I  Tim.  iii.  7  ;  Rev.  xvi.  15  ;  Matt.  xvii.  27;  xxvi.  5, 
etc. 

17.  "Desired"  for  "would  have"  =  {^i'Acav, — "sought 
to."  (.'')  It  is  remarkable  that  in  Spanish  they  use  querer 
(from  the  Latin  quaerere),  for  the  French  vouloir,  the  Ger- 
man wollen,  the  Latin  volo,  and  the  Greek  OeXco.  All  these 
correspond  more  nearly  to  our  will  than  to  our  rvish  or 
desire. 

22,  23.  From  the  Revisers'  suggestion  of  "  a  Son  of  God" 
at  Matt.  xxv.  54,  and  from  the  rendering  "  the  Son  of  God" 
at  John  x.  36  ;  "  sons  of  God"  at  Rom.  viii.  14  ;  "children 
of  God"  at  John  i.  12  and  John  iii.  3;  "  sons  of  thunder," 
Mark  iii.  17;  "son  of  exhortation,"  Acts  iv.  36;  "an  un- 
known God,"  Acts  xvii.  23;  "a  root  of  all  kinds  of  evil," 
I  Tim.  vi.  10,  etc.,  etc., — it  would  have  seemed  only  con- 
sistent if,  in  this  passage,  they  had  translated:  "But  ye 
are  come  to  a  mount  Zion,  and  unto  a  city  of  a  living  God, 
a  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  to  innumerable  hosts  of  angels, 
to  a  general  assembly  and  church  of  men  firstborn  enrolled 
in  heaven,  and  to  God  a  judge  of  all,  and  to  spirits  of  just 
men   made  perfect,  and  to  Jesus  a  mediator  of  a  new  cov- 


HEBREWS.  I  Si 

enant,  and  to  a  blood  of  sprinkling,"  etc.  At  all  events,  if 
it  i^  to  be,  as  they  translate,  "  innumerable  hosts  of  angels," 
then  it  should  also  be  "  a  general  assembly  and  church  of 
men  firstborn  enrolled  in  heaven"  ( — not  "who  are"); 
and  if  it  is  to  be  "  of  a  new  covenant,"  then  it  should  also 
be  "of  a  living  God."  Moreover,  "who  are  enrolled" 
and  "  made  perfect"  they  put  for  perfect  participles  in  the 
Greek, — not  "  who  have  been"  and  "  having  been;"  but  cf. 
Matt.  V.  lo,  etc. 

28.  "Offer  service  well-pleasing"  for  "serve  acceptably" 
=^\arpev(jOfxev  svaptGroji.  Cf.  Rom.  xii.  1,2 — "  accept- 
able ;"  also  Matt.  iv.  10;  Luke  i.  74;  iv.  8;  Acts  vii.  7; 
xxvi.  7  ;  xxvii.  23,  etc. — "  serve." 


XIII. 


I.  "  Love  of  the  brethren"  for  "  brotherly  love"  =  cpika- 
deXcpia.  (?) 

7.  "Them  that  had  the  rule  over  you,  which  spake"  for 
"them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken"== 
r(2)y  j)y ov }.lLv c&)v  vpK^v,  ovrirs?  eXaXrjffav.  The  present 
participle  they  here  render  as  a  past,  and  oiTive?  by 
"which"  and  not  "the  which;" — the  change  of  "who"  to 
"which"  seems  to  have  contented  them.  The  yyovjj.lvGov 
might  be  rendered  "rulers,"  without  regard  to  time  (see 
vii.  6) ;  but  eXaXijffav  should  rather  be  rendered,  with 
A.  v.,  as  a  perfect.  The  "  rulers"  spoken  of  were  probably 
still  living  and  in  office;  see  verse  17.  The  verb  /.iv7jp(0- 
vevGO  means  simply  "think  of,"  "bear  in  mind." 

15.  "  Then"  for  "therefore."  (?)  "A  sacrifice"  for  "the 
sacrifice,"  and  then  "the  fruit," — why?  No  article  in 
Greek,  but  see  xii.  22,  23. 

18.   "  Desiring"  for  "willing"  =  "  seeking."  (?) 

20,  21.  "The  great  shepherd  .  .  .  even  our  Lord 
Jesus"  for  "our  Lord  Jesus,  that  great  shepherd."  What 
need  of  Grecizing?  Is  the  sense  affected?  "The"  for 
"that"  is  well  enough,  though  trifling;  cf.  iv.  3;  James  ii. 
14,  etc.,  etc. 


1 82  VOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

JAMES.  • 

I. 

9.  "  In  his  liigh  estate"  for  "  in  that  he  is  exalted"  =iv 
tg5  vipei  avToO,  and  then  "  in  that  he  is  made  low"  =  fV  rfj 
Ta7t€ivooff€i  avrov.  Cf.  Luke  i.  48,  where  they  render  this 
very  raTTSivcjffi?  "  low  estate."     "  Straightway"  ! 

11.  "Anseth,"  "withereth,"  "  falleth,"  **  perisheth," 
are  all  for  Greek  aorists. 

12.  "  Promised"  for  "hath  promised," — aorist.  (?) 

15.  "Then  the  lust,  when  it"  for  "  then  when  lust  .  .  . 
it."  (?)  "  The  lust,"  "  the  sin,"  for  "  lust,"  "  sin,"— article 
generic; — "mint,  anise,  cummin." 

17.  "Boon"  for  "gift."  There  is  no  need  of  using  izao 
English  words,  unless  we  have  fit  words  to  use.  The  two 
Greek  words  are  of  the  same  etymology.  "  Shadow  that 
is  cast  by  turning"  for  "shadow  of  turning"  =rpo7r?/? 
aTTOffjiiaff/xa.  How  does  turning  cast  a  shadow?  The 
A.  V.  is  literal  and  correct.  If  we  mus^  have  it  explained 
in  the  translation,  we  might  say,  "shadow  whose  direction 
is  changed  by  turning,"  or,  better,  "shadow  that  turneth;" 
cf.  verse  25,  "  a  hearer  that  forgetteth  =  ajtpoarrjZ 
iniXriG )xovr}<i. 

18.  "Of  his  own  will"  = /?ol'A7/(96/?,— notice  "will," 
not  wish  or  desire. 

20.  "  The  wrath,"  "  the  righteousness," — no  article  in  the 
Greek.  Why  did  they  not  say,  "  man's  wrath  worketh  not 
God's  righteousness"  ?  Cf.  2  Tim.  ii.  24,  ''the  Lord's  ser- 
vant" faithfully  substituted  for  "  the  servant  of  the  Lord," 
— thus  making  believe  to  get  rid  of  the  article.  (?) 

25.  "The  perfect  law,  \.\\c  law  oi  liberty"  for  "  the  per- 
fect law  of  liberty"  =  vopiov  rov  r//?  sXsvOspia?.  And 
why  not  "a  perfect  law,  the  law,"  etc.?  Cf.  Gal.  ii.  20; 
Ileb.  ix.  I  ;  xii.  11;  i  Pet.  i.  19. — "Being"  =  yevojuevo?, 
— not  "becoming;"  "  that  forgetteth"  for  "forgetful," — 
who  is  "  forgetful"  but  he  "  that  forgetteth"  ?  =  r/)?  eni'Xjjff- 
juov?/<5 :  "that  worketh"  for  "of  the  work,"  =  (;roz7;T;/?) 


JAMES.  183 

fpj/of=''a  doer  of  work,"  or  "the  doer  of  the  work-" 
cf.  verse  20,  etc. 

27.   "Himself"  =  one's  self.     Cf.   i  Thess.  iv.  9. 


II. 

I,  "Hold"  for"  have"  ==  f j^re.  Cf.  Mark  xi.  22; 
Matt.  xvii.  20;  xxi.  21,  etc., — "  have  faith." 

4.  "Are  ye  not  divided  .  .  .  and  become," — aorists  ren- 
dered as  presents  or  perfects.  "  With"  for  "  of  ;" — "  of" 
is  exact  but  ambiguous;  =  npiral  6ia\oyi(ipi(^v  TTorrjpc^y 
=  "  judges  who  are  led  by,  or  who  think,  evil  thoughts." 
For  the  construction,  cf.  i.  25. 

5.  "Did  .  .  .  choose"  for  "  hath  chosen  ;"  "promised" 
for  "  hath  promised," — aorists.  (?) 

6.  "Have  dishonored"  for  "have  despised  =yrifxa- 
(jars  : — aorist ;  but  is  not  "  dishonored"  rather  too  strong — 
too  positive — here.''     Cf.  "disbelief." 

8.  "  Howbeit  if"  for  "  if  "  =  £/  fxkvroi.  The  pet  "  how- 
beit"  again  !  It  seems  to  stand  ready  for  any  Greek  particle 
somewhat  obscure  or  idiomatic.  Why  not  say  here,  "  if 
now,"  or  "if  then,"  or  rather,  "'  if  indeed"  ?  See  the  fol- 
lowing Ei  de  in  the  apodosis. 

12.  "  Men  that  are  to  be  judged  by  a  law  of  liberty"  for 
"  they  that  shall  be  judged  by  the  law  of  liberty."  What 
is  the  advantage  of  "  men  that  are  to  be"  over  "they  that 
shall  be"  ?  And  as  to  "a  law"  for  "the  law,"  cf.  i.  20; 
Heb,  ix.  15  ;  xii.  5,  22,  23,  etc. 

13.  "  Hath  shewed" — an  aorist. 

14.  "  That  faith"  for  "  faith"  =  ?}  niGTii  .•  but  cf.  verse  17. 
18.   "In  itself"  for  "  being  alone"  z=  jiad   iavfi}v.     Say 

"by  itself;"   the  A.  V.  is  not  far  wrong. 

21.  "In  that"  for  "  when"  (he  oiiQ.x&6)=- avEviyKa'^, — 
"having  offered  ;"   so  verse  25. 

22.  "  By  works"  =  in  rc^v  e'pyoov  :  "  faith"  ==  ?/  TtiGtii 
How  happened  they  to  forget  the  articles?  Surely  it  is: 
"by  the  works  was  the  faith  made  perfect,"  i.e.,  "by  his 
works  was  his  faith,"  etc. 


1 84  NOTES  ON    THE   LATE  REVISION. 


III. 


1,  "Be  not"  =/^V  ylvsffOs — not  "  become."  "  Heavier 
judgement"  for  "  the  greater  condemnation."  Does  not 
fxElSiOv  itself  sliow  that  np'^)i\  really  means  condemnation  .' 
With  "judgement"  they  are  compelled  to  assume  a  change 
in  its  proper  meaning. 

2.  "  Tho  whole  body  also"  =  nai  o\ov  ro  0(S)}.ia.  Why 
didn't  they  say  :  "  even  the  whole  body' '  ?     See  Luke  vii.  49. 

6.  "  The  world  of  iniquity  among  our  members  is  the 
tongue"  =  o  ^oV/roS"  r?/' afJzw/a?  7)  yXc^aaa  liaOiffTarai 
£v  To7?  /.tlXsff IV  t}/xc5v  =  ^'  the  world  of  iniquity  doth  the 
tongue  make  itself  among  our  members."  They  render 
TO  oXov  and  oXov  to  alike,  "  the  whole."  See  verses  2  and 
3,  of.   Matt.  xxii.  37;  Luke  x    27. 

10.  "Cometh  forth"  for  "  proceedeth"  =  e^tpx^rai. 
But  the  Revisers  very  often  render  this  verb  by  "go"  in- 
stead of  "come"  forth;  in  St.  Matthew,  for  example,  the 
instances  are  two  to  one.     See  Matt.  ix.  26,  31,  32,  etc. 

14.  "Faction"  (in  your  heart),  for  "  strife"  =epi6€ lav. 
Faction  in  the  heart .' 

15.  {A  tins  do  in  that)  "  cometh  down"  for  "  descendeth" 
=  earl  liar fpxojxhn].  Why  not  "is  coming  down"  or 
"descending"  ?  or  "  is  one  that  cometh  down  or  descend- 
eth."    Cf.  Col.  iii.  10;  Matt.  xix.  22,  also  Heb.  i.  i,  etc. 


IV. 

4.  "  Maketh  himself"  for  "  is"  =Ha6i(jrarai.  But  see 
iii.  6.     Consequential.^ — "  straightway"  ! 

V. 

I.  "Ye  rich"  for  "ye  rich  men"  =  oz' ;rAot;(rzoz.  But 
presumably  they  were  men  ;  and  if  so  the  A.  V.  is  the  bet- 
ter English.  They  might  have  said  "  ye  who  are  rich," 
very  literally,  and  idiomatically  also. 

4.  'Wlio  mowed,"  "reaped"  for  "  have,"  etc.,  equivalent 
to  "the  mowers,"  "the  reapers  of."      But,  if  put    in    the 


/.  PETER,  185 

verbal  form,  the  more  natural  English  in  the  connection  is 
in  the  perfect ; — observe  "  which  is  (not,  which  was)  kept 
back." 

5,6.  "Have  lived,"  "have  taken,"  "  have  nourished," 
"have  condemned,"  "have  killed," — all  aorists.  So,  at 
verse  II,  '' have  heard,"  "  have  seen." 

7.  "  The  early  and  latter  rain," — no  article  in  the  Greek. 

10.  Inversion  of  order,  after  the  Greek,  but  not  necessary 
to  faithfulness ;  for  the  sense  is  the  same,  only  the  A.  V. 
follows  the  English  idiom  for  emphasis.     Cf.  2  Pet.  iii.  i. 

12.  "  The  heaven,"  "  the  earth,"  for  "  lieaven,"  "earth." 
(.^)  Cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  35. 

16.  Having  said  "  the  supplication,"  where  there  is  no 
article  with  a  nominative  case,  they  might  have  rendered 
€vspyov)j.tv7],  "effectual"  or  "being  effectual"  (A.  V.)  in- 
stead of  "  in  its  working."  ("A  righteous  man's  prayer 
works  with  mighty  effect.") 

I.  PETER. 
I. 

T,  2.  There  is  no  Greek  article  in  these  verses,  but  the 
Revisers  have  inserted  "  the"  six  times.  "Elect"  they  have 
separated  from  its  connection  with  "according  to,"  follow- 
ing the  Greek  construction ;  but  is  there  any  doubt  of  the 
sense  ?  Here  they  seem  to  have  felt  the  duty  of  being  no 
clearer  than  the  original. 

5.  "  A  salvation"  for  "  salvation"  .?  See  verse  9  ,  where 
they  say  "  the  salvation,"  though  there  is  no  more  article 
there  than  here.  There,  however,  "  salvation"  is  with  a 
genitive;  but  cf.  Luke  xix.  9  ;  i  Thess.  v.  9  ;  Heb,  i.  14;  ii. 
3;  vi.  9,  etc.,  etc.;  where  they  familiarly  use  "salvation" 
in  an  absolute  way; — and  it  is  here,  at  most,  only  a  ques- 
tion of  punctuation. 

6.  "  Have  been  put  to  grief"  for  "  are  in  heaviness"  = 
XvTTTjdevTS?, — literally  "were  grieved," — aorist. 

7.  "Proof"  for  "trial"  =  SoKijuiov  =  "proving".? 
"  Though  it  is  proved"  for  "  though  it  be  ;" — the  proving  is 
not  affii^med,  but.  the  Revision  makes  it  seem  so. 


1 86  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

12.  "  Have  been  announced"  for  "  are  reported"  =dv7jy- 
yiXtf :  two  forms  of  the  perfect,  alike  for  an  aorist. 

19.  Here  is  another  of  the  characteristic  elaborate  inver- 
sions to  conform  to  the,order  of  the  Greek  words.  "  With 
precious  blood  .  .  .  even  the  blood  of  Christ"  for  "  with 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ."  But  is  it  really  greater 
faithfulness  to  the  original,  to  say  "  precious  blood,  even  the 
blood,"  than  to  say  "the  precious  blood"?  If  "even  the 
blood"  may  be  implied,  cannot  "  the"  be  implied,  and  that 
too  when  followed  by  a  genitive?  But  oh,  the  modern 
mysteries  of  the  Greek  article !  Even  if  the  order  of  the 
Greek  must  be  followed,  we  should  still  have, — "  By  the 
precious  blood,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without 
spot,  of  Christ," />.  (re-arranging)  exactly  as  the  A.V.  stands. 

20.  Here  a  Greek  perfect  and  an  aorist  are  co-ordinated, 
and  both  rendered  in  the  preterite. 

23.  "  Having  been  begotten"  for  "  being  born  ;" — but  see 
"  it  is  written." 

24.  "  Withereth,"  "  falleth," — aorists. 

II. 

2.  "  Spiritual"  for  "  of  the  word"  =  XoyiHov.  Marg. 
"reasonable."  So,  most  of  the  former  translations.  The 
A.  V.  follows  the  Geneva  version.  It  is  remarkable  that 
for  the  same  word  at  Rom.  xii.  i,  the  Revisers  put  "  reason- 
able" in  the  text  and  "spiritual"  in  the  margin. 

7.  "Was  made"  for  "  is  made"  (or  "has  been  made")  = 
iyev7]07].  (?) 

9.  "  I"or  God's  own  possession"  for  "peculiar;" — but  his 
otvn  is  the  peculiar  meaning  of     peculiar,"  irom peculium. 

10.  "  Which  had  not  obtained  mercy,  but  now  have  ob- 
tained mercy"  =  01  ovn  tfK.Brjp.ivoi,  vvv  St  eXsi/f^ivTss. 
Note  the  tenses,  and  compare  i.  20. 

11.  "  Which"  ^  a-fTirfS, — not  "the  which,"  nor  "for 
they,"  cf.  Heb.  x.  8,  11. 

12.  "Seemly"  for  "honest."  Is  this  seemly?  Why  not 
say  "  honorable"  or  "  becoming  ?" 

15.    "  By"  for  "with."     But  with  or  in  is  certainly  more 


/.  PETER.  187 

consonant  to  the  participial  construction  than  "  by;"  "  with 
well  doing"  =  ayadoTtoiovvrai. 

19.  "Acceptable"  for  "  thankworthy,"  marg.  "Gr.  grace;" 
say  rather  "  Gr.  thanks." 

24.  "  Having  died  unto  sins"  for  "  being  dead  to  sins"  = 
a7toyevoj.i£voi  ? — two  forms  of  the  perfect,  but  the  former 
having  a  preterite  meaning. 

25.  "  Ye  were  going  astray  like  sheep"  for  "ye  were  as 
sheep  going  astray."  Gr.  "  as  sheep  ye  were  going  astray." 
"Are  now  returned"  =  iTtsGrpacprjrs  vvv. 

III. 

4.  "A  meek,"  etc.  =  rou  rrpaeo;,  etc.  How  happened 
their  faithfulness  not  to  say,  "the  meek  and  quiet  spirit  ?" 
Cf.  "The  sower,"  etc.;  see  v.  11,  and  "the  Aveeping  and 
gnashing,"  etc.  They  insert  ^''apparel"  for  "ornament;" 
but  the  gender  and  number  in  the  original  require  the  latter. 

6.  "Ye  now  are"  f  or  "  ye  are  =  ey^r/^Oz/rf .  Aorist  and 
no  vvv :  cf.  ii.  7,  where  "was  made"  for  "  is  made." 

12,  "  Upon"  for  "  against."  The  rendering  of  tni  should 
of  course  be  changed  according  to  its  connection.  Does 
"  upon"  give  the  sense  here  in  English  ? 

14.  "But  and  if,"  again;  here  for  aW  €i  uai.  See  i 
Cor.  vii.   II  and  2  Cor.  iv.  3. 

20.  '*  Wherein"  =  si?  yv.  Marg.  to  be  preferred,  z'.e. 
"entering  into  which." 

21.  "  Interrogation"  =  eTrspGorrjfxa.  Marg.  better,  i.e. 
"the  appeal  of  a  good  conscience  to  God."  (Note,  if  it 
was  the  ark  that  saved  the  others,  i.e.  brought  them  safely 
through  the  water,  how  should  it  be  "after  a  true  likeness" 
that  the  tuater  should  now  save  us  ?  It  would  seem  that  it 
must  be,  not  the  water  that  saves,  but  baptism  in  its  con-. 
Crete  spiritual  sense,  as  an  act  of  faith  and  of  a  good  con- 
science.) 

IV. 

I.  "  Suffered"  ^naOovro?.,  by  the  preterite  when  spoken 
of  Christ ;  "  hath  suffered"  =  iraQoov,  by  the  perfect,  of  the 


l88  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

Christian.  What  becomes  then  of  the  faithfulness  of  per- 
sistently rendering  arrWcx^'e,  "  died,"  when  speaking  of  the 
Christian  as  well  as  of  Christ  ? 

3.  "And  to  have  walked"  for  "when  we  walked' '  = 
;Tf  ;ropft;oyUiVou?  =  "  having  walked"  or  "  while  we  have 
walked."  Cf.  the  change  made  in  verse  8,  in  just  the  con- 
trary sense. 

5.  "Who;"  but  is  not  this  ambiguous?  Why  did  they 
not  render,  "and  they"  or  "but  they"  or  "for  they,"  as 
they  do  sometimes  elsewhere  ? 

6.  "  Even  to  the  dead"  for  "  also  to  them  that  are  dead" 
=  jiai  vSHpoI? :  i.e.  "to  them  also  that  are  (now)  dead  ;" 
say,  then,  "  to  the  dead  also.'" 

10.  "  Hath  received  "  ==  an  aorist.  "A  gilt"  for  "the 
gift"  =jc^pz(5'/iar.  (?)     Cf.  v.  i. 

11.  "Any  man"  =  rzc, — not  "anyone."  "As  it  were 
oracles  of  God"  for  "  as  the  oracles  of  God"  =  ch^Xoyia 
0€ov.  Cf.  V.  I,  and  pypia  Qeov  at  Heb.  vi.  5  and  xi.  3,  and 
see  John  vi.  68  ;  James  v.  16,  etc.  See  also  "  the  manifold 
grace  of  God,"  just  before,  without  Greek  article;  and 
W'hy  should  go?  be  rendered  "  as"  immediately  before  and 
after,  but  "as  it  were"  here  ? 

V. 

I.  "The  elders," — no  article;  in  the  direct  accusative. 
Cf.  Eph.  iii.  15. 

3.  "Of  constraint"  for  "  by  constraint"  =  avn'yna<JT(2)?. 
Wherefore  the  change  ?  Did  they  suppose  that  "  by  con- 
straint" might  be  understood  for  "by  constraining"  ?  So 
may  "of  constraint"  be  understood  for  "of  constraining" 
if  one  7£//7/.  But  the  next  words  forbid  any  such  interpre- 
tation. 

4.  "Shall  receive"  =  uo^islaOs, — not,  "receive  again." 
But  see  Matt.  xxv.  27;  Eph.  vi.  8;  Col.  iii.  25;  Heb.  xi. 
19;  where  they  put  "receive  back"  or  "again,"  for  "re- 
ceive;" while  at  i.  9  ;  2  Cor.  v.  10  ;  Heb.  x.  36;  xi.  39,  they 
render  as  here,  simply  "receive." 

5.  "To  serve  one  another"  ==  n-AAz/Aoz?,  "for"  or  "to- 
wards one  another."     They  use  no  italics  here. 


//.    PETER.  189 

9.  Marg.  "  Gr.  being  accomplished"  =  f7rzr£Afr(r0az  == 
"to  be  accomplished."  Do  they  mean  that  it  is,  "  to  be 
being  accomplished"  ? 

12.   "  Have  written  "  =  i'ypaxpa. 

II.    PETER. 
I. 

I,  3,  "  That  have  obtained"  =  roTi  Xaxovai  (aorist),  and 
then  (3)  "  that  called"  for  "  that  hath  called"  =  rov  naXi- 
Gavroi.  "  Virtue"  =  apsrr/i .- — being  referred  to  God,  it 
had  better  be  "excellency,"  as  at  i  Pet.  ii.  9. 

7.  "  In  love  of  the  brethren  supply  love"  for  "to  brother- 
ly kindness  add  charity."  If  "love"  is  to  be  substituted 
for  "charity"  =  ayarty],  "brotherly  kindness"  is  surely 
better  than  "  love  of  the  brethren,"  not  only  for  sound's 
sake,  but  because  the  Greek  word  (cpiXia)  for  the  love  that 
is  "  kindness"  is  different  from  that  [ayanrj)  for  the  "  love" 
that  is  "charity."  The  simple  reader  might,  from  the 
Revision,  suppose  them  to  be  the  same  ;  and  then  be  puz- 
zled to  know  how,  "  in  love  of  the  brethren,"  "  love"  was 
to  be  "supplied."  And,  in  general,  this  "supplying  in" 
may  be  very  good  Greek,  but  after  all  "adding  to"  ex- 
presses the  same  sense  in  better  English. 

12.  "Are  established"  =  f(rr/;/C)z}/yMfVof?, — not  "have 
been  established." 

14.  "  Signified"  for  "  hath  showed"  =  idrfXaoGe.  But  there 
is  nothing  expressed  about  the  mode  of  showing, — no  sign 
or  token  referred  to.     Cf.  Rev.  i.  i. 

18.  "We  ourselves"  for  "  we"  =  A/yuf ?$■  .•  but  cf.  Tit.  iii. 
3,  where  they  correct  just  contrariwise. 

II. 

12.  "Creatures  without  reason,  born  mere  animals"  for 
"  natural  brute  beasts,  made,"  etc.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
text  of  "  creatures,"  and  "  mere  animals"  is  put  for  "  natural 
beasts"  (5o5ar  q)V<Jixa).  Does  the  slight  change  of  order 
in  the  new  text  necessitate  all  this  change,  and  is  it  an  im- 
provement ?     If  8,(^a  is  to  be  rendered  "  living  creatures," 


Ipo  NOTES   ON   THE  LATE   REVISION. 

it  does  not  follow  that  we  can  drop  the  "  living"  and  retain 
the  "creatures."  "Living"  is  the  essence  of  the  original 
word,  and  "creatures"  no  more  belongs  to  it,  and  has  no 
more  right  to  represent  it,  than  would  "  things"  or  "ob- 
jects," after  having  been  inserted  with  "  living." 

15.  "Went  astray,  having  followed"  for  "have  gone 
astray,  following."  (Aorists.)  But  did  they  "follow"  be- 
fore "forsaking  the  right  way,"  and  before  they  "went 
astray"  ?  And  why  did  the  Revisers  not  say  "  a  right  way" 
as  well  as  "  a  root  of  evil"  ?  They  have  no  article  in  their 
text,  and  it  is  a  direct  accusative, without  a  genitive. 

16.  "A  dumb  ass  spake  with  man's  voice  and  stayed  "for 
"the  dumb  ass  speaking  with  man's  voice  forbad"  =  v7to- 
8,vyiov  aqjGovov,  ev  avBpooTrov  (pcovrj  qySsyBai-ievov, 
eHGoXvO'e.  For  the  article,  compare  "  the  dog"  and  "the 
sow,"  at  verse  22;  and  for  the  construction  of  the  partici- 
ple, as  well  as  for  the  article,  compare  "  forsaking  the  right 
way"  at  verse  15. 

17.  "  Hath  been  reserved"  for  "  is  reserved  ;"  but  see  "  it 
is  w^ritten  ;"  and  see  next  below. 

19.   "  Is  overcome,"  "  is  brought," — perfects. 

20,21.  "After  they  have  escaped," — aorist  participle. 
"  After  knowing"  for  "  after  they  have  known," — also  an 
aorist  participle. 

22.  Why  not  translate /«///{/«//)',  and  say:  ''  a  dog  when 
he  turned  upon  his  own  vomit  again,  and  a  sow  when  she 
Avashed  herself  to  wallowing  in  mire"  ? 

III. 

I.  "This  is  now,  beloved,  the  second  epistle  that  I  write 
unto  you  ;  and  in  both  of  them,"  etc.,  for  "  This  second 
epistle,  beloved,  I  now  write  unto  you,  in  both  which,"  etc. 
The  A.  V.  is  here  an  exact  literal  translation  of  the  Greek, 
unless  the  position  of  the  "  now"  should  be  called  in  ques- 
tion ;  and  is  it  not  intelligible,  if  the  R.  V.  is?  What  then 
of  "faithfulness"  ?  In  the  original,  "epistle"  is  in  the  ac- 
cusative case  after  "write,"  and  there  is  neither  "  is"  nor 
"  that  ;"  and  the  whole  phrase  of  the  R.  V.,  "and  in  both 
of  them,"  is,  in  the  Greek,  simply  ev  ak,  as  in  A.  V.,  "in 


//.  PETER.  191 

both  which. "  It  may  be  said  the  literal  translation  is  harsh 
and  the  R.  V.  is  smoother  ;  but  this  the  Revisers  can  scarcely 
urge  without  abundant  self-contradiction.  Cf.  Mark  v.  15  ; 
Actsxxvi.  24;  Rom.  i.  3,  4  ;  viii.  28,  38,  Z9  \  G-al.  ii.  9;  Eph. 
V.  12,  20;  Heb.  X.  20  ;  Ja.  v.  10,  etc. 

2.  "  Should"  for  "  may."     Why  ? 

3.  "  That  in  the  last  days  mockers  shall  come"  for  "that 
there  shall  come  in  the  last  days  scoffers"  =  orz  iXEVGovrai 
in  i^x^'^^'^  T(^v  yj-iepc^v  iixnaiKtai.  The  A.  V.  follows 
the  exact  order  and  sense  of  the  original.  The  "with 
mockery"  of  the  new"  reading  could  be  added  perfectly  well 
after  " scoffers"  or  "mockers."  Do  the  Revisers  pretend 
to  set  English  euphony  against  the  order  and  form  of  the 
Greek  text .'' 

5.  "That  there  w^ere  heavens  from  of  old,  and  an  earth 
compacted  out  of  water  and  amidst  water,  by  the  word  of 
God;  by  which  means,"  etc.  Transposing  the  phrase  "by 
the  word  of  God,"  a  very  literal  translation  of  the  Greek 
would  stand  thus:  "  Tliat,  by  the  word  of  God,  heaven  was 
from  of  old,  and  earth  of  water  and  in  water  consisting  ; 
by  means  of  which,"  etc.  One  would  understand  from  the 
Revision — and  perhaps  it  was  intended  to  be  so  understood 
— tliat  the  "  compacting"  ((TL'K£0'roj(Ta'=  "  consisting"),  and 
not  "  heaven  and  earth,"  was  "  by  the  word  of  God  ;"  and 
"  by  which  means"  {61  ojv)  might  in  English  be  also  re- 
ferred to  "  tlie  word  of  God,"  instead  of  the  conditions  of 
the  earth  as  related  to  water. 

9.  "  Not  wishing"  for  "  not  willing":^ //?//?OfA.o//fro5'.(?) 
Cf.  3  John  13.  "Not  designing,"  or  "  not  intending,"  or 
"  not  being  pleased."  "Wishing"  seems  too  idle  a  thing  to 
predicate  of  God. 

14.    "  In  his  sight"  for  "of  \nm"  ^  avrcp. 

16.  "All  his  epistles"  =  ^r^cofz?  aniaroXaiS.  Cf.  Rev. 
iii.  2.  "  Ignorant"  for  "  unlearned"  ==  aixa^eii.  "  Igno- 
rant" is  elsewhere  always  a  translation  from  ayvoEGO. 

17.  "  Lest"  =  I'va  jj.?].     See  Heb.  xii.  13,  note. 


192  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE   REVISION. 

I.  JOHN. 

I. 

1,  "  Beheld"  for  "have  looked  upon"  (cf.  John  iv.  35). 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  apostle  means  to  make  a  distinction 
between  the  time  of  the  "  seeing"  and  of  the  "beholding," 
although  he  says  ioopauafxev  and  i6s.aGa)j.e6ix : — both 
forms  being  so  used  in  Greek  as  to  be  properly  expressed 
by  our  perfect,  while  our  preterite  and  perfect  are  not  thus 
interchangeable.  For  some  of  the  cases  in  which  the  Re- 
visers have  rendered  the  Greek  aorist  and  perfect  co-ordi- 
nated as  perfects,  cf.  Acts  xxv.  10,  n  ;  xxi.  21-24;  John 
xiii.  i.|,  15  ;  Matt.  xxvi.  12,  13  (an  aorist  as  a  preterite  and 
then  a  perfect);  Phil.  iii.  12;  iv.  xi,  13;  Rev.  xviii.  2,  3; 
and  especially  Acts  xxii.  15.  The  repetition  of  "that  which" 
is  unnecessary  and  not  literal.  "  What"  might  have  been 
literal,  and,  so,  repeated. 

2.  "  The  life,  the  eternal  ///f"  for  "that  eternal  life"  == 
TT^v  BtOorjv  ri)v  aiaoviov.  But  see  the  "  daily  bread"  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  etc.  As  for  the  construction  and  the  em- 
phatic "  that"  of  the  A.  V.,  cf.  Eph.  i.  13,  19;  James  ii.  14, 
etc. 

II. 

5.  "Hath  been  perfected"  for  "is  perfected"  =  rfrf^fz- 
Gotai.  Cf.  TETtXsfftai^  John  xix.  30,  and  see  below,  iv. 
12,  17,  and  V.  I  ;  where  we  have  TersXeico/xevT^  e'ffriv  ren- 
dered "is  perfected, "  and  this  very  rsTsXsicjTai  rendered 
"  is  made  perfect,"  and  ysyevvi^rai  rendered  "  is  be- 
gotten." 

7.  "  No  new  commandment  write  I"  for  "  I  write  no  new 
commandment."  But  cf.  z.  Thess.  iii,  2,  where  the  order 
of  the  Greek  is  (what  there,  too,  logic  requires)  "  not  all 
have  faith."  Here  one  order  is  as  logical  and  as  intelligible 
as  the  other,  with  precisely  the  same  sense.  If  emphasis  is 
appealed  to,  it  will  apply  in  Thess.  as  well  as  here. 

8.  "  Write  I"  for  "  I   write."    Oh,  exquisite  faithfulness ! 
II.  "  Hath  blinded," — an  aorist. 


/.  JOHN.  193 

13,  14.   ''  Have  written"  (tris) — an  aorist. 

15.    "Any  man"  =  rz?, — not  their  usual  "any  one." 

18.    "  Heard"  for  "  have  heard/'  (?) 

ig.  The  marg.,  "That  not  all  are  of  us,"  is  singularly 
arorrov,  as  being  contrary  to  the  order  of  the  Greek  and 
inconsistent  with  the  manifest  sense  and  logic  of  the  pas- 
sage.    Cf.  2  Thess.  iii.  2,  also  i  Cor.  vi.  12. 

34.   "  Heard  from  the  beginning"  for  "  have  heard,"  etc. 

26.  "  Have  I  written," — an  aorist.  "  Would  lead  astray" 
for  "seduce"  =  TtXavGovTCov.  There  is  nothing  for 
"  would;" — faithfulness. 

37.    "  Received,"  "  taught,"  for  "have,"  etc.  (?) 

28.  ^^  At  h'xs  coming"  =  ey  rt}  7t a povaioc.  Cf.  Phil.  ii.  10, 
av  rep  ovo/iari  Itjffov. 

III. 

I.  "For  this  cause"  for  "  therefore"  =  d'za  rouro,  and 
then  "because"  (euphony?).  They  themselves  render  did 
TOUTO  by  "therefore"  at  iv.  5  ;  Matt,  vi,  25  ;  xii.  27  ;  xiii. 
13,  52  ;  xiv,  2  ;  xviii.  23  ;  xxi.  43  ;  xxiv.  44  ;  Mark  vi.  14  ;  xi. 
24  ;  Luke  xi.  19,  49  ;  xii.  23  ;  xiv.  20 ;  John  ix.  33  ;  xiii.  1 1 ; 
XV.  19;  xvi.  15;  xix.  11;  Acts  ii.  26;  2  Cor.  iv.  i  ;  vii.  13; 
2  Tim.  ii.  10  ;  Philemon  15  ;  Heb.  i.  9;  ii.  i  ;  Rev.  vii.  15; 
xii.  12;  xviii.  8;  and  at  John  x.  17,  where  it  is  followed  by 
"because,"  just  as  it  is  here.  They  have  put  "for  this 
cause"  instead  of  "therefore"  at  Mark  xii.  24  ;  John  i.  31  ; 
V.  16,  18  ;  vi.  65  ;  vii.  22  ;  viii.  47  ;  xii.  39 ;  Rom,  iv.  16  ;  2 
Cor.  xiii.  10;  i  Thess,  iii,  7,  and  here.  Under  these  circum- 
stances of  course  Greek  scholarship  can  decide  nothing. 
Let  every  intelligent  reader,  noting  the  context  in  each 
case,  say  whether  it  was  not  possible  to  avoid  making  these 
changes  consistently  with  faithfulness.  To  my  own  appre- 
liension  they  are  not  even  improvements  in  any  sense  or 
degree ;  but,  in  the  case  before  us,  for  example,  the  change 
seems  to  me  decidedl}--  and  entirely  for  the  worse.  At  all 
events,  think  of  "  straightway,"  and  remember  that  Sta 
ravTTiv  airiav  is  the  proper  Greek  for  "for  this  cause;" 
see  Acts  xxviii.  20,  etc. 


194  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

3.  "Everyone"  for  "  every  man."     Cf.  ii.  15. 

4.  "  Every  one  that  "  for  "  whosoever"  =  7ta<^  o.  This  is 
a  frequent  correction  of  the  faithfulness  of  the  Revisers, 
But  see  the  6th,  9th,  loth,  and  15th  verses  of  this  very 
chapter,  where  we  liave  *'  whosoever"  for  na?  6  five  times 
over. 

8.  "  To  tliis  end'' for  "  for  this  purpose"  =  f/s"  ToOro.  To 
what  purpose  the  change  ? 

9.  "  Is  begotten"  (bis)  for  the. perfect.     Cf.  ii.  5; 

16.  "Hereby  know  we  love," — r7]y  aya7T?^y  =  '' his 
love".''  "He"  immediately  follows  without  antecedent. 
But  cf.  Rom.  V.  9,  "  The  wrath  0/  God"  ==  r//?  opj/yi. 

17.  "  Beholdeth"  is  dragged  in  again  for  BsGjpFj :  but 
with  it  they  have  "  shutteth  up"  for  jiXelffi^.  How  happened 
they  to  overlook  that  this  last  is  an  aorist  and  requires 
"  shall  shut  up"  ? 

24.   "  Gave"  for  "hath  given."   (?) 

IV. 

6.  "Who  for  "that;"  why.?  "  Heareth  us  not"  for 
"  heareth  not  us;"  why  ?  Faithfulness  !  In  "  heareth  us," 
here,  the  "us"  is  not  enclitic,  but  has  an  accent  or  empha- 
sis ;  and  therefore  in  the  contrasted  phrase  "  heareth  not 
us,"  propriety  of  utterance  requires  "  us"  to  come  last. 

V. 

4.  "That  hath  overcome"  for  "that  overcometh"  = 
tf  viHtfffaffa,  literally,  "that  overcame."  See  verse  6,  "  that 
came"  =  o  sXB'oov :  and  verse  18,  o  ysvvr/B^sii  =  "  that  was 
begotten  ;"  and  this  last  is  expressly  contradistinguished 
from  a  perfect  participle,  o  yeysvvtjfAtvoi,  which  is  ren- 
dered "is  begotten."  Why  not  then,  here,  say,  "that 
overcometh,"  if  it  is  once  assumed  that  tf  vinrjGaaa  maybe 
rendered  as  if  it  were  a  perfect  or  present  ?  And  see  Matt. 
iii.  17,  "in  whom  I  am  well  pleased." 

9.  "  For  the  witness  of  God  is  this,  that  he  hath  borne 
witness,"  etc.,  for  "  For  this  is  the  witness  of  God,  which 


//.  JOHN.— III.  JOHN.  195 

he  hath  testified,"  etc.  Their  Greek  will  permit  the  render- 
ing, "  For  this  is  the  witness  of  God  (for  he  hath  borne  wit- 
ness," etc.)  See  verse  11  for  the  content  of  the  testimony  :, 
and  see  2  John  6  for  the  construction  of  "  this." 

16.  "  Not  concerning  this  do  I  say  that  he  should  make 
request"  for  "  I  do  not  say  that  he  should  pray  for  it"  = 
ov  TVEpi  SKeivr/'S  Xsycj  iva  spojTrjffrj.     Cf.  2  Thess.  iii.  2,  etc. 

19.  "  Lieth  in  the  evil  one"  for  "  lieth  in  wickedness  "== 
£v  rep  7iov7]pcp.  (?  ?)    Grant  the  sense  ;  is  this  English.-' 

II.  JOHN. 

4.  "I  rejoice"  for  "I  rejoiced"  =  fjo^p^r  .•  with  "have 
found"  for  "  found,"  perfect.  Cf.  3  John  3.  "  Command- 
ment" for  "  a  commandment"  =  £Vro/l//r.  But  what's  the 
difference  ?  And  if  there  is  any,  how  did  the  Greek  deter- 
mine for  them  which  to  prefer  ?  As  for  the  rendering  of 
the  perfect  by  "found"  in  the  A.  V.,  cf.  Gal.  iii.  17  ;  Heb. 
xi.  17,  28;  2  Cor.  ii.  13;  John  vi.  25 ;  Matt.  xiii.  46;  i  Pet. 
i.  20;  Mark  xv.  47  (plup.  }). 

7.  "  Are  gone  forth" — an  aorist,  ^^  Even  they  that  con- 
fess not"  for  "who  confess  not'"  =01  ixrj  6  jjidkoyovyrei . 
Cf.  Rom.  ix.  5  ;  John  xix.  39,  etc.,  etc. 


III.  JOHN. 

5.  "A  faithful  work  in"  for  *' faithfully"  =  ^rzeroi^. 
There  is  no  word  for  "work."  "  Doest"  ==  Trozf??  and 
^epydffr]  alike.  Render,  "thou  doest  faithfully  whatever 
thou  workest"  .'' 

7.  "The  name"  for  "his  name"  =  tov  ovo/uaro?.  (?) 
"  His  name"  in  St.  John's  language  means  Christ's  name, 
and  that  is  what  is  meant  here. 

13.  "Am  unwilling"  for  "will  not"  =  ov  BeXco.  Cf.  2 
Peter  iii.  9,  where  they  say  of  tAe  Lord  "  not  wishing." 


196  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

JUDE. 

I.  They  say  "Jude"  in  the  title  and  then  "Judas"  in  the 
text.  Is  the  epistle  ascribed  to  the  wrong  person  ?  "  For 
Jesus  Christ"  for  "in  Jesus  Christ."  The  eV  naturall^'-and 
probably  goes  over  from  fV  (9£c5  narpi :  or  else  "  Jesus 
Christ"  may  be  in  the  instrumental  dative.  How  happened 
they  thus  to  transpose  "  called"  from  its  proper  position  in 
the  text  ? 

3.  "I  was  constrained"  for  "  it  was  needful  for  me"  = 
avayuTjv  i'ffxov.  The  "  diligence"  is  consistent  with 
"need,"  but  is  it  with  "constraint".^ 

4.  "  Eve/i  they  who"  for  "  who"  ^  o/.  But  cf.  verse  6, 
John  xix.  39 ;  Rom.  ix.  5,  etc.  "  Were  set  forth"  for 
"  were  ordained"  =  01  npoysypafA-ixivoi.  Where  does  "  set 
forth"  come  from  ?  And  why  did  they  not  say  "  have  been 
set  forth"  ?  This  is  a  perfect  participle,  and  belongs  to  the 
subject  of  another  (English)  perfect, — not  a  preterite.  Cf. 
Rev.  V.  12, 

5.  "A  people"  for  "the  people"  ^  AaoK,  i.e.  \a(jv 
^laparjX.  The  Israelites  are  plainly  referred  to ;  and  "  the 
people"  is  the  more  natural  English. 

10.  "Whatsoever  things"  for  "those  things  which"  = 
off  a — "as  many  things  as. "  Immediately  after,  they  (with 
the  A.  V.)  render  oGa  by  "  what."  If  "whatsoever"  dif- 
fers from  "what"  or  "  those  which, "  one  or  the  other  of 
their  renderings  is  wrong,  and  their  change  from  the  A.  V. 
is  without  reason,  or  worse.  "  Creatures  without  reason" 
for  "brute  beasts"  =  «Ao;/ a-  8,aJoi.  But  S,<^a  does  not 
mean  mere  "creatures,"  but  "animals"  or  "beasts,"  or,  at 
most,  "  living  creatures  ;"  and  the  "  living"  is  essential. 

II.  "Woe  unto  them;" — better,  "alas  for  them." 
"Went"  for  "  have  gone,"  and  so  on  ;  but  these  aorists  are 
required,  by  their  relation  to  presents,  to  be  rendered  as 
perfects. 

13.  *'  Hath  been  reserved"  for  "  is  reserved  ;"  but  see  "  it 
is  written." 

15.    "Have  wrought,"  "  have  spoken," — aoiists. 

34.   "To  set  without  blemish"  for  "  to  present  faultless" 


HE  VELA  TION.  1 9  7 

=  GxrjGai  ajAGDfXOVi.  (?)  "Without  stumbling"  for  "  from 
falling"  ==  aTTTaiffrovi.  See  also  "  stumble,"  James  iii.  2  ; 
but  compare  ffHavdaXi^cj  and  "  straightway." 


REVELATION. 

I. 

I.   "  Signified"  =  £(5'7yMa'ZJ^£K  .•  right,  but  cf.  2  Peter  i.  14. 

4.  "Which  is  to  come"  =0  epxojusvos :  right,  but  cf. 
Matt.  xi.  3  ;  Heb.  x.  37,  etc. 

5,  6.  "  Loosed"  and  "  made"  for  "hath,"  etc.  (?) 
9,  10.  "I  was"  =  iyevofj-j^v. 

13.  "A  son  of  man"  for  "the  Son  of  man"  =  vi(^ 
av^pcoTfov.  But  see  "  the  voice  of  many  waters"  at  verse 
15  ;  and  see  ii.  18  : — He  was  "  the  Son  of  God." 

15.  "  As  if  it  had  been  refined"  for  "as  if  they  burned" 
=  7tS7tvpGi)}xevr}i  for  n^nvpco^xsvoi.  What  is  the  syntax  of 
this  reading?  What  is  the  "it"  which  "  had  been  refined"  ? 
*'  Brass"  ?  But  ;i;a'A;i:oAz/?arrc!9  is  of  the  neuter  gender.  The 
Vatican  MS.  and  Tischendorf  (3d)  read  as  A.  V.  "As  the 
voice  of  many  waters"  =  coS  qicovrj^  etc.  Why  not  "a 
voice"?     Cf.  verse  13,  and  vi.  i. 

II. 

2-9.  Here  are  six  aorists  co-ordinatea  with  two  perfects, 
all  of  which  should  be  rendered  as  perfects.  Cf.  Acts  xxi. 
21-24;  Phil.  iii.  12;  iv.  II,  12;  John  xiii.  14,  15;  Matt, 
xxvi.  12,  13;  Rev.  xxviii.  2,  3  ;  Acts  xxv.  10,  11  ;  Mark  v. 
19  ;  Heb.  xii.  45. 

9.   "A  synagogue"  for  "  the  synagogue," — predicate. 

12.  "  The  sharp  two-edged  sword"  for  "  the  sharp  sword 
with  two  edges"  ^  TT^v  pojucpaiav  rr/v  diffrofiov  r7]v 
6B,Eiav.  How  important  the  difference  !  How  impossible 
consistently  with  faithfulness  to  avoid  the  change  !  And 
how  could  they  consistently  with  faithfulness  fail  to  say : 
"the  sharp,  the  two-edged  sword,"  or  rather,  "the  sword, 
even  the  two-edged,  the  sharp  one"  ?  Let  us,  by  all  means, 
have  the  full  force  of  the  Greek  ;  did  they  not  see  all  those 


198  AZOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION: 

articles  ?  Surely  they  are  not  so  repeated  for  nothing;  and 
cf.  the  next  verse. 

13.  "My  witness,  my  faithful  one"  for  "my  faithful 
martyr"  =  o  fxaptvi  juov  6  Ttiaro?  jjlov.  Cf.  the  "  daily 
bread"  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  And  as  for  the  term  "  mar- 
tyr," this  was  plainly  a  "martyr"  in  the  full  modern  sense, 
i.e.,  one  who  died  in  attestation  of  the  truth. 

23.  "Each  one  of  you"  for  "  every  one  of  you."  The 
Revisers  often  render  snaffroz  by  "  every,"  and  if  it  may 
be  so  rendered  anywhere,  why  not  here  .'' 

III. 

2.  "Be  thou  watchful"  for  "be  watchful"  =  yivov 
ypi]yopwv.  "Works  of  thine"  for  "thy  works"  =  Cou 
i'pycx.  Very  nice;  but  cf.  3  Cor.  vi.  16;  Eph.  ii.  10;  Rom. 
ix.  7  ;  2  Pet.  iii.  16. 

3.  A  co-ordinated  perfect  and  aorist  here  distinguished. 
See  ii.  2-9,  note. 

4.  Did  not  defile"  for  "have  not  defiled."  (?) 

5.  "In  no  wise"  for  "  not"  =  Of /<7.  But  at  verse  3 
they  had  just  rendered  these  particles  by  the  simple  "  not." 

8.  "A  door  opened"  for  "an  open  door"  =^vpav  ava- 
cjy/xiv7^v.  How  necessary  to  faithfulness!  "That"  for 
"for"=  oTz.  This  may  be  well  here;  cf.  verses  2  and  4. 
Here  are  two  aorists,  and  another  at  verse  10,  which  should 
have  been  rendered  perfects  instead  of  preterites,  as  appears 
from  their  connection  and  co-ordination  with  verbs  in  the 
present  as  well  as  in  the  perfect  tense. 

12.  "/w///  wnye  ripon  him'  is  omitted;  but  is  the  sense 
expressed  clearly  ?  Is  the  omission  necessary  to  "  faithful- 
ness" ? 

17.  "  Have  gotten  riches"  for"  am  increased  in  goods"  = 
nS7tXovrr}Ka.  (?) 

19.  The  emphatic  eyoo  is  not  so  rendered ;  cf.  2  Pet. 
i.  18. 

IV. 

2.  "There  was  a  throne  set"  for  "  a  throne  was  set"  = 
S-povoi  EKEiro.    Say  :  "a  throne  was  set,  and  there  was  one 


REVELATION.  199 

sitting  upon  the  throne."  "  There  wns"  does  not  belong 
where  they  have  put  it.  It  implies  H€ijusyo'S  (for  eusiro), 
like  the  following  Ha^7//xsvo=.     Cf.  Matt.  ir.  18. 

3.  "To  look  upon"  iov  "  in  sight"  =  opaffsi.     Faithful.'' 

4.  "Thrones"  for  "seats;"  literal  consequential  faithful- 
ness. But  is  it  not  rather  "seats"  always,  if  we musf always 
have  one  word  ?  We  have  two  English  words  for  the  one 
Greek  word  ;  but,  while  every  "  throne"  in  English  is  a 
"seat,"  not  every  "seat"  is  a  "throne." 

7.  "  Creature"  =  5&3 OK  .•  again,  without  "  living,"  How 
is  the  English  reader  to  know  that  these  "  creatures"  in  the 
7th  verse  are  living,  as  well  as  those  in  the  6th  and  the  8th  ? 
And  see  "  straightway;"  also  Acts  xxvi.  24,  25  ;  i  Cor.  xv. 
27,  28. 

V. 

3.  "  In  the  heaven"  for  "  in  heaven"  =  eV  rc^  ovpavc^  : 
but  cf.  iv.  I,  where  they  say  "  in  heaven"  for  the  same  iv 
tg5  ovpavcp. 

6.  "  As  though  it  had  been  slain"  for  "  as  it  had  been  slain." 
But  cf .  viii.  8  ;  Acts  vi.  15  ;  ix.  18  ;  and  x.  1 1,  where  they  in- 
troduce no  "  though." 

7.  "Came  and  taketh"  for  "came  and  took," — marg^ 
"hath  taken"  =  7)A.S^e  Kal  siXT/cps.  What  contortions! 
Manifestly  these  two  tenses  are  here  co-ordinated,  and  are 
both  to  be  rendered  as  perfect,  or  both  as  preterite. 

11.  "Ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand"  is  equal  only  to 
}.ivftiai  juvpiadcjv.  Alvpiade?  juvpiaSojv  should  be  ren- 
dered "  ten  thousands  of  ten  thousands."  "Ten  thousand 
times  ten  thousand"  is  just  100,000,000;  but  juvpiaSsi 
jjLvpiadoov  is  several  times  100,000,000;  and  is,  I  believe, 
the  largest  expression  of  number  found  in  the  Bible.  The 
"  two  myriads  of  myriads"  of  ix.  16  is  the  least  number 
included  under  thisplural. 

12.  "  Great  voice"  for  "  loud  voice"  =  cpoovi)  pisyaXr/,  It 
is  curious  that  the  Revisers  make  everybody  in  the  book  of 
the  Revelation,  whether  man  or  angel,  cry  with  a  "great" 
voice.  They  have  changed  "  loud"  to  "  great"  twelve  times  ; 
but  in  one  instance,  at  xix.  17, — by  way  of  being  "  straight- 
way" consistent — they  let  the  angel  cry  with  a  "  loud"  voice. 


200  NOTES  ON    THE  LATE  REVISION. 

In  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  they  always  let 
people  cry  with  a  "loud"  voice, — an  expression  which,  in 
those  books,  occurs  some  twenty  times.  The  original  word 
is  the  same  throughout.  One  is  tempted  to  inquire  what 
there  was  special  in  the  air  of  the  Apocalypse  which  hinder- 
ed a  "great"  voice  from  being  "  loud"  ? 

13.  "  The  blessing,  the  honour,"  etc.,  for  *'  blessing,  hon- 
our," etc.;  and  so  at  iv.  1 1  ;  v.  13,  etc.  But  cf.  vii.  10,  12 
and  xix.  ij  where  they  omit  the  articles  ;  and  so  make  the 
current,  as  well  as  the  good  old,  English.  But  see  "the 
weeping  and  gnashing"  at  Matt.  viii.  12,  etc. 

VI. 

1.  "  As  with  a  voice  of  thunder"  for  "  as  it  were  the  noise 
of  thunder"  ^&5?  cpooxn)  (not  (poovi']<i)  jipovri'i'i  ^ '■'  ■^■s.  it 
were  the  voice  of  thunder."  For  "as  it  were"  see  viii.  S, 
and  for  "  the  voice"  (not  "  a  voice")  see  i.  15. 

2.  "Came  forth"  for  "  went  forth"  =  f.?7/AS-f.  "There 
was  given"  for  "was  given."  (.-*) — As  to  came  or  7t'tv//,  the 
question  is  whether  the  movement  is  to  be  conceived  as 
towards  the  speaker,  or  as  across  his  vision, — or,  perhaps, 
away  from  him;  and  whether  from  an  objective  or  subjec- 
tive point  of  view. 

3.  "  Opened"  for  "  had  opened."  But  either  may  be  used; 
and  so  the  A.  V.  used  both.  As  to  the  Revision,  cf .  v.  8  and 
X.  10,  for  examples  of  the  pluperfect  rendering. 

4.  "  And  another  horse  came  forth,  a  red  horse"  for  "  and 
there  went  out  another  horse,  that  was  red"  ^  eSyXBsv  aXXo? 
irntoi  TtvppnS.  For  the  order,  cf.  the  next  clause  and 
verse  2.  Is  "  a  horse,  a  red  horse"  better  than  "a  horse,  t/iat 
7uas  red"  }  And  if  the  A.  V  may  be  interpreted  as  mean- 
ing "  another  red  horse,"  so  may  the  R.  V.,  after  all. 

8.  "  \Vith"  =  fV  (tris). 

9.  "Had  been  slain"  for  "were  s\n.\n"  ^^  eff  q)  ay  jxivoov. 
But  these  are  merely  two  forms  in  English  for  the  same 
tense.  The  A.  V.  is  the  simpler  and  more  natural.  Cf.  xx. 
12,  "  out  of  the  things  which  were  written"  =iK  rwv  y^y- 
pa/.i/Atvoji^.     And   compare  vii.  5-8,  where  sffcppayiffpitvoi 


REVELATION.  201 

is   rendered    "were    sealed"    twelve  times,    though   "were 
sealed,"  there,  can  scarcely  be  understood  as  pluperfect. 

12.  "  There  was"  ==eyev£ro, — not  "came"  or  "  followed," 
cf.  viii.  I,  etc. 

VII. 

1.  "That  no  wind  should"  for  "that  the  wind  should 
not"  =  iva  /xt)  Ttverf  a ve jj.os  ="  that  wind  should  not 
blow."  Cf.  I  Cor.  ii.  9  and  Luke  xxii.  34.  An  articular 
throe. 

2.  "  Great"  for  "loud"  (voice),  again.     See  v.  12,  note. 

3.  "Till  we  shall  have  sealed"  for  "  till  we  have  sealed." 
But  one  is  only  the  shortened,  and  the  ordinary  and  easy, 
form  for  the  other.  Cf.  their  own  ti"anslation  at  John  viii. 
2S  ;  Rom,  xi.  25;  Gal.  iv.  19  ("be"  for"  shall  be");  i  Cor. 
xi.  36,  "come"  for  "  shall  come;"  etc.,  etc. 

12.  "Blessing  and  glory  and  wisdom,"  etc.  Here  they 
at  length  omit  the  articles  with  which  they  encumber  the 
sense  elsewhere.  Cf.  iv.  11  ;  v.  13,  etc.  ;  also  Matt.  viii.  12, 
etc.,  "  the  weeping." 

14.  "I  say"  for  "  I  said"  ==  er'pjjna,  followed  immediately 
by  the  co-ordinated  f/;r£  =  "  he  said."  (?) 

15.  "  Spread  his  tabernacle"  for  "  dwell."     Cf.  xxi.  3,and 

John  i.  14. 

VIII. 

1.  "There  followed  a  silence"  for  "there  was  silence"  = 
iyevero  ffiyrj.  But  see  verse  7  and  vi.  12  and  xvi.  18.  And 
what  would  be  the  Greek  for  "silence,"  which  should  be 
neither  "the  silence"  nor  "  a  silence"  ?  "In  heaven"  = 
sv  too  ovpavGO. 

2.  "There  were  given  unto  them"  for  "to  them  were 
given"  ^£6o^7]0av  avToli.  Cf.  Matt.  x.  32,  33,  and  Mark 
iii.  17,  "them  he  surnamed"  for  "he  surnamed  them"  = 
€7ce^r]K£v  avtoi?  ovofxara. 

3.  "Add  it  unto  the  prayers"  for  "  offer  [give]  it  with 
the  prayers."  So  the  margin  of  A.  V.  But  cf.  the  next 
verse,  where  they  say  "  with  the  prayers"  for  the  very  same 
construction,  i.e.  the  simple  dative  with  a  verb  of  action. 

5.  "  Taketh"  for  "took"=  si'XTfqjEv^  "and  filled"  = 
iy£fALG£v.     Here  again  we  have  a  perfect  coordinated  with 


202  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

an  aorist,  where  both  should  be  translated  either  in  the 
perfect  or  in  the  preterite  (sec  note,  ii,  2-9).  "Followed" 
for  "  were"  =fyiVoKTo.-  but  cf.  xvi.  iS,  etc.  It  is  true 
that,  in  verse  7,  the  A.  V.  put  "followed"  for  eyivero.-  but 
they  professedly  study  variety ;  and  why  should  the  Re- 
visers change  in  some  places,  while  yet  they  retain  the 
variety?     Remember  "straightway." 

9.  "Even  they  that  had"  for  "that  h^d"  =  ra  i'xovra. 
This  follows  the  change  of  case ;  but  does  it  give  the  real 
sense  ?  Is  it  meant  that  all  that  had  life  died  ?  or  only  a 
third  part  of  them  ? 

10.  "  From  heaven  a  great  star," — sk  rov  ovparov.  See 
also  ix,  I.     Not  "  out  of  heaven,"  nor  "  out  of  the  heaven." 

IX. 

I.  "Heaven"  and  "the  earth;" — both  with  articles  in 
the  Greek.     Cf.  vi.  13,  and  Acts  iv.  24. 

6.  "Men  shall  seek"  for  [then]  "shall  men  seek"  == 
8,i]Ti}GovGiv  01  av^pooTioi.  "In  no  wise"  for  "  not"  = 
ov  }xi).     But  cf.  iii.  3,  etc. 

7.  "  Men's  faces"  for  "the  faces  of  men '  =  TcpoffaoTta 
av^poDTCoov, — as  though,  in  English,  the  one  did  not  imply 
the  article  which  the  other  expresses.  Is  not  the  change 
simply  J>uen'le  ?  And  why  did  not  the  learned  Revisers  say 
"  women's  hair"  for  "the  hair  of  women"  =  rp/^'a'5  yvv- 
az;fG5j',  immediately  afterwards.''  According  to  their  ap- 
parent principles  of  translation  one  would  have  a  right  to 
infer  that  there  was  an  article  with  "the  hair"  and  none 
with  "  faces."  Yet  they  are  inconsistent  even  with  their  ap- 
parent principle  ;  for,  at  x.  10,  they  render  €)c  T?j;  x^'P^^ 
rov  ayytXov  "out  of  the  angel's  hand;"  while  at  Matt, 
xii.  40,  they  change  "the  whale's  belly"  into  "the  belly  of 
the  wliale."  And  then,  too,  what  becomes  of  the  articular 
precision  of  "the  Lord's  servant"  at  2  Tim.  ii,  24? 

9.  "War"  for  "  battle"  ==  7ro'A£/.<or.  But  the  context 
requires  "battle."     See  note,  i  Cor.  xiv.  8. 

14.  "At  the  great  river  Euphrates"  =  rc5  7rora'/^G5  ro5 
j^EyaXcp  Evcppat)].  Why  did  they  not  say  :  "  the  river, 
even  the  great,"  etc.  ?     Cf.  xiv.  19,  etc. 


RE  VELA  TION.  203 

17.  "Breastplates  as  of  fire"  for  ''breastplates  of  fire." 
The  A.  V.  is  faithful.  "  As  heads  of  lions"  follows  in  the 
Greek  with  c^z :  there  is  therefore  a  difference  in  the  two 
cases.  "  Like  brimstone"  they  might  have  said,  for  the 
Greek  has  ^Eidodeiz. 

19,  20.  "\Vith"  =  fV  (bis). 

20.  "Devils  and  the  idols"  =  r«  daifxovia  nai  ra 
el'dGoXa — alike  with  the  article  in  the  Greek. 

X. 

1.  "Arrayed"  for  ^'  clothed"  =  Tte  pi /3s/3Xi^jii€vov.  Why 
didn't  they  say,  "  enveloped  in,"  and  have  done  with  it? 
The  A.  v.,  indeed,  uses  "arrayed"  elsewhere;  but  why 
should  faithfulness  require  a  change  here.''  What  is  the 
difference.'     See  note,  at  viii.  5,  upon  iyireTo. 

4.  "  A  voice  from  heaven"  =^cpoovr]v  ix  rov  ovpavov: 
and  so  at  xiv.  13  and  xviii.  4.  But  cf.  Matt.  iii.  17  ;  Mark 
i.  1 1,  "a  voice  out  of  the  he2Lv  ens' ^  =  cp  gov  7)  e'u  tgjv  ovpa- 
y^y :  and  Luke  iii.  22;  John  xii.  28;  Acts  xi.  9,  etc., 
"  out  of  heaven"  =  iu  rov  ovpavov. 

7,    "  Is  finished," — an  aorist. 

9.  "  Saying  unto  him  that  he  should  give  me"  =XeycDv 
avtcp  dovvai  fxoi  (a  new  text)  =  "telling  (or  asking)  him 
to  give  me."  And  see  "to"  for  "unto"  at  ii.  1,  8,  12,  18  ; 
iii.  I,  7,  14,  etc.,  etc.  Yet  here,  in  an  original  translation 
of  theirs,  and  having  no  A.  V.  to  correct,  they  say  "  unto'^'  ! 
What  irresistible  constraint  of  faithfulness  !  See  Acts  xxi. 
21,  note. 

10.  "When    I    had    eaten"  =  ot8    s'cpayov .-     but    cf. 

"opened"   for   "had    opened"  (with   the    2d   and   the    7th 

seals). 

XI. 

2.  "Nations"  for  "Gentiles;"  but  cf.  Luke  xxi.  24; 
Rom.  ix.  24,  etc.  The  "nations"  are  here  contradis- 
tinguished from  the  Jews. 

3.  "Give"  for  "give  power T  But  what,  then,  do  they 
give? 

5.  "Desireth  to"  for  "  will"  =  Sf Afz  .•  and  so  again  in 
this,  and  in  the  6th  verse.     But  is  it  the  mere  desire  that  is 


204  NOTES   OX   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

meant,  without  the  executive  purpose  or  volition  ?  There 
is  no  ambiguity  in  tlie  A.  V.  from  the  use  of  will,  for  it 
cannot  properly  stand  in  these  connections  as  the  auxiliary 
to  form  the  future  tense ; — that  would  be  shall. 

lo.  "  Dwell"  for  "dwelt."  But  see  ''tormented."  The 
tense  of  the  participle  in  the  translation  follows  that  of  the 
governing  verb.  See  xiv.  18.  "  He  called  to  him  that  had 
the  sharp  sickle,"  w^here  "him  that  had"  is  for  a  present 
participle, 

17.  "  Hast  taken  and  didst  reign;" — another  instance  of 
£iXt]q)a^  coordinated  with  an  aorist.  Cf.  viii.  5  ;  v.  7,  there 
rendered  by  a  present. 

18.  "The  small  and  the  great"  for  "  small  and  great ;" 
but  cf.  "  heaven  and  earth,"  Luke  xxi.  33,  etc. 

19  and  15.   "  Followed"  for  "were"  =€yivovro.     So  the 

A.  V.  at   viii.  7  ;  but  see  vi.    12;  Matt.    viii.  26,  etc.  ;  and 

note  at  viii.  5. 

XII. 

5.  "Was  delivered  of"  for  "brought  ion\\'  =  iranev  : 
consequential;  —  but  see  verse  13,  where  they  render 
"brought  forth"  for  this  identical  case,  word,  and  tense. 

15.  "  River,"  "  stream"  =  TtoTa/Aov,  notajxoqjoftijrov — 
for  "flood"  in  both  cases  (fluvius).  Cf.  "straightway," 
and  Acts  xxvi.  24  ;   i  Cor.  xv.  27,  28. 

17.  "Waxed  wroth"  for  "was  wroth"  =  copyiff^?/.  Cf. 
Matt,  xviii.  34;  xxii.  7;  Luke  xiv.  21  ;  xv.  28;  and  above 
at  xi.  iS,  where  they  translate  by  "being  wroth"  or 
"angry;" — consequential.?  "Straightway."  "  Hold"  for 
"  have"  =  sxoyToov : — consequential  again  ? 

XIII. 

6.  '■'"Even  them  that  dwell  in  the  heaven."  Here  heaven 
seems  to  be  the  abode  of  the  blessed,  and  not  the  visible 
sky;  and  yet  they  give  it  the  article  in  English. 

S.  "  Hath  been  written"  for  "  is  [are]  written"  =  yiypait- 
tai!  "That  hath  been  slain"  for  "slain"  =  rov 
iff(pay)J.ivov.  [}) 

10.  "  With"  ==  fV  (bis). 

12.   "Death  stroke"  for  "deadly  wound"  =  7c\i]y7}  rov 


RE  VELA  TION.  205 

'^avarov.     Death  stroke  is    often  used   in  English   for  no 
"wound"  [nXriy?])  at  all. 

13.  "That  he  should  make''  for  "  so  that  he  maketh"  == 
i'l'a  TToitj.  (?)     Cf.  verse  15. 

15.  "  That  the  image  should,"  etc.  (i'va).  Here  "that" 
==  "so  that."     Cf.  13,  and  the  relation  in  the  two  cases. 

16.  "  The  small  and  the  great,  and  the  rich  and  the  poor, 
and  the  free  and  the  bond"  for  "  both  small  and  great,  rich 
and  poor,"  etc.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  sense.''  And 
see  "heaven  and  earth,"  etc.,  etc.  "That  there  be  given 
them"  for  "  to  receive"  =  i'va  Sc^ffiv  avTOi?^  "  that  they 
should  give  them."  So,  after  all,  the  Revisers  are  not 
literal^  if  that  is  what  is  meant  hj  faithful ;  and  meantime 
the  A.  V.  gives  the  simple  resultant  sense. 

17.  "  He  that  hath"  for  "  he  that  had"  =  o  s'xoov : — then 

they  should  have  omitted  their  "  should"  just  before,  as  in 

verse  16. 

XIV. 

2.  "As  the  voice"  (bis)  ;  no  article  in  the  Greek. 

3.  "  Out  of  the  earth"  for  "  from  the  earth"  =  ano  tt}? 

6.  "An  eternal  Gospel"  for  "  the  everlasting  Gospel." 
No  article  in  the  Greek;  but  qucere?  and  cf.  "the  heavenly 
Jerusalem."  "  To  proclaim"  for  "to  preach"  =  ff «';/;/£- 
Xiaai.  But  cf.  Matt.  xi.  5;  Luke  iii.  18;  iv.  18,43;  xvi. 
16;  I  Cor.  i.  17;  Gal.  i.  8;  Eph.  ii.  17, 

11.  "They  that  w^orship."  There  is  no  ground  in  the 
Greek  for  this  repeated  "  they."  Cf.  John  ii.  9,  where  they 
do  not  say  "  the  servants,  they  which."  "  Whoso"  =£iTii 
=  "  if  any  one."  Cf.  xx.  15,  where  they  substitute  " if 
any"  for  "whosoever."     Cf.  also  verse  9. 

12.  "They  that"  for  "here  arc  they  that."  The  inser- 
tion is  grammatically  necessary,  although  the  "  here"  is 
not  repeated  in  the  new  text. 

14.  "A  son  of  man"  for  "the  Son  of  man."  Wherefore, 
then,  "son"  at  all?  Why  "a  son  of  man"  rather  than 
simply  "a  man,"  if  that  is  all  that  is  meant  ?  Christians 
had,  from  prophecy,  from  Jewish  tradition,  and  from  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord,  a  vivid  idea  of  the  glory  of  "  the  Son 


2o6  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

of  man."  See  Stephen's  dying  vision.  Even  if  it  was  ''  a 
son  of  man"  to  the  prophet  Daniel,  it  was  nevertheless 
"the  Son  of  man"  to  those  who  applied  the  prophecy.  The 
angel,  in  verse  15,  may  utter  a  prayer  or  request  rather  than 
a  command. 

16.  "  Cast  his  sickle  upon  the  earth"  for  "thrust  in  his 
sickle,"  etc.,==5 ey^aAf"*'  to  dp-ciiavov  avrov  eni  ri]v  yr/v. 
What  does  this  mean?  faithfulness  to  the  Greek /Jrj^AA-co  ? 
But  compare  verse  15  ;  and  see  Matt,  x,  34,  where  they  say 
"to  send  peace  on  the  earth"  for  fiaXuv  £iprfvi]v  inX  rj]v 
yyv. 

1 8.  "He  that  hath"  for  "that  had"  ==  6  i'xoor.  (?)  The 
"he"  is  unnecessary.  Cf.  Rom.  ix.  5;  and  "had"  is  re- 
quired in  connection  with  the  preterite  verb.  Cf.  the  fol- 
lowing words,  "  him  that  had  the  sharp  sickle." 

19.  "Cast  his  sickle,"  again,  for  "  thrust,"  etc,  "The 
wine-press,  the  great  wine-press  oi  the  wrath  of  God"  for 
"  the  great  wine-press  of  the  wrath  of  God"  =  rijv  Xrjvov 
rov  B^vjAOv  rov  Osou  t?}v  jxsya'Kijv  ==  "the  wine-press  of 
the  wrath  of  God,  the  great  (one)."  So,  after  all,  they 
have  not  retained  the  order  of  the  Greek  ;  and  why  have 
they  any  more  right  to  put  in  "  wine-press"  twice  in  Eng- 
lish for  once  in  Greek,  than  to  make  the  order  of  the  words 
in  English  different  from  that  in  the  Greek — the  sense 
remaining  the  same?  Cf.  ix.  14  (xvi.  12)  ;  Mark  i.  26; 
and  the  "  daily  bread"  of  the  Lord's  Praj^er. 

30.    "  The  bridles  of  the  horses"  for  "  the  horse  bridles." 

"As  far  as"  for  "by  the  space  of"  =  ano.     What  is  the 

difference  of  sense  ? 

XV. 

1.  "Is  finished," — an  aorist. 

2.  "Come  victorious"  for  "had  gotten  the  victory"^ 
riHc^vTa?.  After  "  I  saw,"  the  participle  should  be  ren- 
dered by  a  preterite  verb  ; — "came"  for  "  come,"  or  still 
better  "were  victorious,"  or  "had  gotten  the  victory;" — 
there  is  no  "  come"  in  the  text. 

3.  "  O  Lord  God  the  Almighty"  for  "  O  Lord  God  Al- 
mighty ;"  and  so,  often,  in  this  book.  It  is  true,  the  Greek 
has  the  article;  but  is  not  English  usage  settled  to  have 


REVELATION.  207 

"  Almighty"  in  such  connections  without  the  article?  And 
why  does  faithfulness  to  the  original  require  its  insertion 
with  "  Almighty"  any  more  than  with  '*  God"  ?  The 
Greek  is  o  ©eo's"  as  well  as  o  Ttavronparcop.  English 
usage  settles  one  case,  and  why  not  the  other  ?  By  way  of 
showing  their  diligent  consistency,  however,  the  Revisers, 
at  xix.  15,  have  put  "Almighty  God"  for  rou  ©fou  rov 
navronpdropo?, — not  "the  Almighty  God,"  nor  "God 
the  Almighty." 

6.  "And  there  came  out  from  the  temple  the  seven  an- 
gels that  had"  for  "and  the  seven  angels  came  out  of  the 
temple  having."  This  important  change  is  made  because 
their  text  has  01  before  i'xovraz.  "Arrayed  with  precious 
stone  pure  and  bright"  for  "clothed  [iySsdvjxivoi)  in 
pure  and  (the  old  text  has  Kai)  white  linen."  If  we  must 
have  "stone"  (not  "stones")  for  "linen,"  why  insert 
"precious"  out  of  the  whole  cloth,  and  "and"too^  which  is 
especially  thrown  out  of  their  text  .-•  Why  not  boldly  say, 
"clothed  in  pure,  bright  stone,"  and  be  faithful  to  the 
original?     "Arrayed,"  in  the  Revision,  elsewhere  =  ^Tfpz- 

Be6Xr]u.tvo<^. 

XVI. 

I.  "Go  ye"  for  "  go  your  w^ys''  =  V7tayETS :  but  cf. 
Matt,  xxvii.  65  ;  Luke  x,  3  and  xix.  30.  In  the  last  pas- 
sage they  substitute  "go  your  way"  for  "  go  ye'^  =  V7taysr£ ! 

3.  "  Even  the  things  that  were"  =  Ta=  "  whatever  Unas'* 
(or  were).  (?) 

5,  "  Didst  thus  judge"  for  "  hast  judged  thus."  (?)  This 
aorist  is  coordinated  with  a  perfect  "hast  given;"  and,  in 
the  connection,  the  simple  English  naturally  is  a  perfect. 
See  note,  ii.  2-9. 

7,  14.  "  God  the  Almighty"  for  "God  Almighty."  Cf. 
xix.  15. 

9.  "The  God  which"  for  ''God  which."  Why  did  they 
not  say  just  above,  "  O  Lord,  the  God,  the  Almighty"  ?  Is 
the  author  a  polytheist  ? 

12.  *' The  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates."  '■'■River'"  is 
utterly  unnecessary,  if  not  the  "the"  also.  But  let  us  be 
thankful  that  their  faithfulness  did  not  lead  them  to  say 


2o8  NOTES  ON   THE  LATE  REVISION. 

"the  river,  the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates,"  exactly 
after  the  Greek  order.  "The  kings  that  cotne  from  the 
sunrising"  for  "...  of  the  '^■ix.s'C'  =r^v  ano  avarok(^v 
r/\iov.  There  is  no  need  of  the  "  co}?ie  ■  '  and,  if  they  could 
not  say  "  East"  for  "  sunrising,"  why  did  they  not  render 
"  from  the  risings  of  the  sun''?     Is  not  avaroXc^v  plural  ? 

15.  "  Lest'' =  fV^v  yU//.  But  cf.  Col.  ii.  4;  iii.  22,-  Phil, 
ii.  27  ;  Heb.  iv.  11,  etc.,  etc.,  where  they  change  to  "that 
not."  But  in  several  other  places,  as  at  i  Tim.  iii.  7,  they 
render  "  lest." 

18.  "Were"  and  "was"'  =  eyivsro.  This  they  have 
many  times  changed  to  "followed" — see  viii.  i,  5,  etc.,  etc. 
— consequential — "  straightway." 

21.  "Hail  Cometh  down  out  of  heaven"  ==  en  rov 
ovpavov, — not  "  the  heaven."  And  cf.  viii.  10,  "  from  hea- 
ven." Did  it  then  come  from  the  abode  of  the  blessed.' 
Cf.  Acts  xi.  9,  etc. ; — "  a  voice  out  of  heaven."  But  perhaps, 
after  all,  they  have  no  rule,  but  insert  or  omit  the  article  with 
"heaven"  ad  lib. — provided  only  they  may  diverge  from  the 
A.  V.  But  see  x.  8;  xi,  13;  xiv.  2,  13;  xviii.  4,  where  they 
render  "a  voice  from  heaven,"  not  "  out  of  heaven." 

XVII. 

8.   "They"  is  needless. 

10.   "  Are  fallen," — an  aorist. 

12.    "  Have  received," — an  aorist. 

14.  '■'•  Also  shall  overcome'"  for  ''''are."  (?) 

17.  "Did  put"  for  "  hath  put"  ==  idcoKBv.  (?)  "  To  come 
to  one  mind"  for  "to  agree"  =noufGai  /^lav  yvcopnjv.  (?) 

17.  "Should  be  accomplished"  for  "  shall  be  fulfilled" 
=  tEXsG^yGovrai.  Tliis  change  of  tense  follows  from 
"did  put,"  above;  but  the  future  here  tends  to  show  that 
it  should  have  been  "  hath  put,"  as  in  the  A.  V. 

XVIII. 

2.  "  Fallen  is," — the  aorist.  "  Is  become," — the  aorist. 
3.  "Are  fallen," — the  perfect.  Thus  they  rightly  render 
an  aorist  and  a  perfect  alike  in  coordinated  phrases;  and 
see  note,  ii.  2-9.     But  again,  "committed"  for  "have  com- 


REVELATION.  209 

milted," — an  aorist.  "  Waxed  rich"  for  **  are  waxen  rich," 
—  an  aorist ;  and  then,  verse  5,  ''have  reached"  =ino\\r]- 
^■rfGav^  and  "  hath  remembered"  ==  ipLvrj^xovsvGsv. 

10.  If,  instead  of  putting  "  woe"  for  *'  alas"  in  this  and 
several  other  instances,  they  had  put  "alas"  for  "woe"  in 
many  cases  where  the  A.  V.  has  the  latter,  as  in  the  Gos- 
pels, they  would  have  secured  the  true  sense  and  prevented 
mistakes.  Here  the  sense  may  be  the  same  with  either 
word,  for  it  is  plain  a  malediction  is  not  intended,  even  if 
*'woe"i3  used.  Say  "  woe"  for  the  noun  and  "  alas"  for 
the  interjection  ? 

14.    "Are  gone,"  '*  are  perished,"  for  aorists. 

17,  19.  "  Is  made  desolate,"  for  the  aorist. 

21.  "  A  strong  angel"  for  "  a  mighty  angel"  ==  iffx^^po?. 
But  cf.  xix.  18,  where  iffxvpc^v  are  "  mighty  men."  Con- 
sequential, "straightway." 

21.  "A  mighty  fall"  for  "violence"  =  oppirjjxaTi  = 
"  with  a  sudden  ruin' '  ? 

23.  "The  princes"  for  "the  great  men"  =  /xsyifftavsi- 
Etymology  favors  the  A.  V. 

24.  "  That  have  been  slain"  for  "  that  were  slain"  =  t<^v 

sdqjayixivwr  =  "  that  had  been  slain,"  in  connection  with 

a   preterite   verb  as  here ;  and  "  were  slain"  comes  nearer 

this  than  "  have  been  slain"  does.     Indeed,  the  Revisers 

often  use  it  as  a  form  of  the  pluperfect.     Cf.  xx.  4  ;  MatL 

xxii.  3,  etc. 

XIX. 

1.  "  Salvation  and  glory,"  etc.  Here  again,  as  at  vii.  12, 
they  omit  the  articles  which  they  have  so  often  inserted  in 
similar  ascriptions;  but  they  insert  "belong"  as  though  it 
were  certainly  in  the  text; — qucere? 

2.  "  Hath  judged," — aorist ;   "  hath  avenged," — aorist. 

4.  '*  That  sitteth"  for  "  that  sat."  Do  they  forget  that  it  is 
told  as  a  vision  ?     Cf.  verses  19  and  21. 

5.  "  Give  praise  to"  for  "  praise"  =  aiveirs.  (?) 

6.  "Reigneth," — aorist. 

7.  "Is  come,"  "  hath  made," — aorists. 

8.  "  Was  given," — aorist. 

9.  "These  are  true  words  of  God"  for  "these  are  the 


2IO  NOTES    ON     THE    LATE    REVISION, 

true  sayings  of  God"  =Ovtoi  oiXoyoi  aX?/Bivoi  rov  Qsov 
siai.  But  what  has  become  of  the  article,  and  that  after 
"tliese"?  (Cf.  Mark  xii.  31.)  "  Bidden"  for  "  called"  = 
janXiij-dvoi.  It  was  not  possible  to  refrain  from  this  im- 
portant emendation  consistently  with  faithfulness  ? 

11.  "Saw  the  heaven  [for  'heaven']  opened"  ==  rov 
ovpavov.     See  Acts  x.  11,  note. 

12,  13.  ^^  Are"  for  ^' were."  (?)  The  latter  is  probably 
preferable — not  certain.  Some  of  the  verbs  describing  this 
vision  are  in  the  present  and  some  in  the  past ;  but  the 
visions  are  generally  described  in  the  past. 

14.  Here  they  say,  "  the  armies  which  are  [for  '  were']  in 
heaven  followed  him."  This  is  certainly  harsh,  but  is 
printed  as  if  "  are"  were  in  the  Ux/,  which  it  is  not. 

15.  "Wrath  of  Almighty  God"  ^  rr/?  opyij?  rov  ©eov 
rov  TTavroKpdropo?.  They  forget  their  article  with  Al- 
mighty. Cf.  xvi.  7,  14,  where  they  have  "  God  the  Al- 
mighty," for  the  very  same  Greek. 

17.  "A  loud  voice"  =  cpoovrj  /ASyaXrj.  They  forget  their 
apocalyptic  "  great  voice.' ' 

iS.  "  Mighty  men"  =  iffx^P^^-  They  forget  their 
*' strong  angel"  at  xviii.  21. 

20.  "  Them  that  had  received"  =  rov?  Xa/Sovra?  .•  "  them 
that  worshipped"  =  rot)?  TrpoaHWOvvra? — with  a  preter- 
ite verb — right ;  aorist  participle  as  a  pluperfect,  and  pres- 
ent participle  as  a  preterite, — and  so  the  A.  V.  Cf.  Matt. 
XXV.  16,  17,  iS.  "  They  twain"  for  "these  both"  =  oz'(yvo. 
How  important!  And,  after  all,  it  is  not  "they  twain" 
but  simply  "the  twain"  or  "the  two"  or  (ious  les  deux) 
"both."  At  Matt.  xix.  5,  the  Revisers  substitute  "the 
twain"  for  "  they  twain"  as  the  rendering  for  oi Svo\ 

21.  "The  sword  of  him  that  sat  {rov  HaByjfiFVOv)  even 
the  sword  which  came  forth"  for  "  which  sword  proceeded," 
(r/7  f^eX'^ovffr} :) — one  participle  is  present  and  the  other 
aorist,  and  they  are  rendered  alike  in  the  preterite. 

XX. 

4.  "  Such  as"  for  "  which"  =  oYrive<i  ="  who"  or  "  those 
who."     "  Had  been"  for  "  were"  ;  but  either  makes  a  pin- 


REVELATION.  21 1 

perfect  passive.    "  Worshipped"  and  "  received"  for"  had," 
etc. ;  but  this  would  imply  the  ifnper/ect,  here. 

12.  "  And  I  saw  the  dead,  the  great  and  the  small"  ; — ar- 
ticular faithfulness  ;  Greek  for  English  idiom,  see  "  heaven 
and  earth."  "  Out  of  the  things  which  were  written"  = 
eu  rd>v  ysypa/^piivcov, — not  "  have  been"  nor  "  had  been." 
Cf.  verse  4  and  vi.  9  ;  v.  12,  etc. 

XXI. 

1.  "Are  passed  away"  for  "were  passed  away"=an 
aorist  ! 

2.  "  Made  ready"  for  "prepared"  =  ifroifxaGfxivijv.  See 
note,  Matt.  iii.  3. 

9.  "  The  wife  of  the  lamb"  for  "the  lamb's  wife."  Faith- 
fulness !     And  cf.  X.  10,  "  the  angel's  hand." 

17.  ^^  According  to  the  measure  of  a  man"  =/<frpor 
av^pQOTtov.  No  article  with  fxerpov.  Why  did  not  they 
compromise  upon  "a  man's  measure"  ?  "Of  an  angel" 
for  "of  the  angel."   (?) 

XXII. 

17.  "  He  that  heareth  let  him  say'  for  "  let  him  that  hear- 
eth  say"  =  o  aKOVOOV  Binarco  :  and  similarly  twice  more, 
*'he  that  is  athirst,"  "  he  that  will"  .  .  .  "  let  him."  And 
so  also,  both  the  Revisers  and  the  A.  V.  in  the  Epistles  to 
the  Churches  at  ii.  7,  11,  17,  etc.  But  at  Mark  iv.  9,  the 
Revisers  put  "who  ...  let  him"  for  "he  that.  .  .  let 
him"  ;  while  at  Matt.  xiii.  9,  43  they  put  "he  that  ...  let 
him"  for  "who  ...  let  him"  ;  at  Matt,  xxiii.  20,  21,  they 
put  "he  that"  for  "  whosoever."  The  A.  V.  uses  different 
renderings,  and  so  do  the  Revisers.  In  correcting  the  A.  V. 
here,  they  have  preferred  the  more  cumbrous  and  ungram- 
matical  English  to  the  simpler  and  more  grammatical.  And 
it  may  be  observed  that  the  reason  why  the  A.  V.  translated 
as  it  did  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Churches, 
is  that  the  law  of  euphony  required  it.  The  r^j:^  would  have 
been  offended  with  "  let  him  that  hath  an  ear,  hear"  ;  or, 
still  worse,  "  let  him  that  hath  an  ear  to  hear,  hear."  But 
that  the  Revisers  need  not  have  made  their  correction  in  this 


212  NOTES  ON  THE  LATE  REVISION. 

place,  is  evident  from  their  own  rendering  at  Rom.  xiv.  3, 
where,  with  the  A.  V.,  tliey  translate  this  same  construction 
of  the  Greek  "  let  not  him  that  eateth  set  at  naught  him 
that  eateth  not  ;  and  let  not  him  that  eateth  not  judge  him 
that  eateth'  '=  o  ea^ioov  tov  /xr)  ij^iovra  fxy)  e^ovS^evshoo, 
6  6e  fX7]  ia^ioov  tov  effB^iovra  /^^  Hpiverco.  See  also 
I  Cor.  X.  12,  "  Let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed 
lest  he  fall."  They  do  not  say  "he  that  eateth  let  him 
not,"  etc.  ;  wherefore,  then,  did  faithfulness  compel  them 
to  amend  the  A,  V.  here,  and  say  *'  he  that  heareth  let  him 
say  come,"  etc.,  instead  of  the  simple,  dear,  old,  familiar 
words,  "let  him  that  heareth  say,  Come;  and  let  him  that 
is  athirst  come  ;  and  whosoever  will,  let  him  take  the  water 
of  life  freely"  ? 


GIVEN    TO 


MT  TJtIS  JiZTTltOM. 


fc~: 


Note?on^fhHate  revision  of  the  new 


Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00007  0575 


